lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mars Automatic Pistol

message: Tambien se habla de este arma en la novela de Ken Follet , la caída de los gigantes página 872.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.102.209 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

message: I've submitted a permission request for an image for this article.  Hopefully I'll hear more soon.  The image I'm after can be found on this website.  Kartano (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I've received the author's permission today and uploaded the file.  Permission email forwarded to permissions-en.  Kartano (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image request

message: Warning: "Original Research" follows!
A muzzle energy of 1000 J is still considered excessive, even by today's standards. It's rather close to the original spec of the 10 mm Auto, which in its time was routinely rejected by police agencies for its unpleasantness.
Now there are many recreational shooters and hunters who don't mind even much heavier loads, but considering the distance from the axis of the barrel to the back of the handgrip (where the web of the thumb sits), and comparing this measurement with that in a modern handgun, gives the impression, that muzzle flip must have been very pronounced, and even today very few would enjoy regularly shooting this abomination.
Just my two cents. --BjKa (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recoil 

message: The article could be improved by some important information. Unfortunately I don't have the means to verify these facts:
* A total of around 80 guns were made
* There never was a mass production, all guns were hand made
* All have slight differences to each other. With parts being hand fitted and every incarnation being slightly redesigned it is highly unlikely that any parts from two guns are interchangeable
* None of the known examples has been proofmarked
* Most likely not a single gun was sold commercially
claimed by Ian "Forgotten Weapons" McCollum on youtube.
--BjKa (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements
Talk:Remington M1867

message: This is an extremely Norwegian-centric article, bordering on an attempt to rewrite history. The Norwegian armed forces didn't do anything on their own here since Sweden and Norway were in a union under the king of Sweden following Denmark-Norway's defeat in the final years of the Napoleonic wars. The decision to buy the Remington rolling block rifle was based on a suggestion by a joint Swedish-Norwegian arms commission and the rifle was ordered for both the armed forces of Sweden and those of Norway, in both cases with the approval of the same man, the king of "The United Kingdom of Sweden and Norway" as it was known then, and with the same designation for the rifle, Model 1867. And yes the caliber was indeed 12.17 mm. Remington made 10,000 complete rifles plus 20,000 actions for Sweden (the actions were used for converting earlier muzzle loading rifles of the same caliber to rolling block breech loaders, the converted rifles being designated "Model 1860/67") while two Swedish manufacturers made large quantities of both rifles and carbines under license from Remington. In Sweden the Remington was eventually replaced by Mauser-designed bolt action rifles and carbines, the m/1894 carbine and the m/1896 rifle, after which large quantities of the Remington were sold on the civilian market, becoming a popular rifle among moose hunters.
So IMO the article should be rewritten to include information abouth both the Norwegian and the Swedish models of the Remington rolling block and the title should be changed to "Swedish-Norwegian model 1867 Remington", but rewriting the article and changing the title probably won't go home well in some revisionist circles in Norway...  Allan Akbar (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one else felt like doing it I've done it myself. The article is now neutral and historically correct, and also includes information about Swedish versions of the M1867. Allan Akbar (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting history 

message: The linked article and all the sources I could find only mention his machine gun developed much later. Ain92 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Palmcrantz's repeating rifle?
Talk:Dead time

message: Note to editors:
I plan a rehaul of this article in the very near future.  If you plan on making significant edits please contact me on my talk page before editing. — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @  14:55, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
This article should be about dead time in general, about any process. --Thydzik 06:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

message: This article uses "paralizable", but wiktionary prefers paralysable, and the major reference for this article (Leo) uses "paralyzable", which is also the clear winner according to Google. I have left the spelling as is for now, since the major dictionaries I quickly looked at do not have the word, and I am not familiar with wiktionary etiquette for handling poorly established spellings.  David C Bailey (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced all instances with "paralyzable" for now (I suspect the difference between "paralyse" and "paralyze" comes down to English/American English). It seems to have the most support in peer-reviewed articles and I can only find this on one or two personal websites. In any case it seems like the most logical origin for the word in this context. --  Newty  16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Paralize

message: This is commonly used in motor control.  When a phase changes, the electro-magnets will reverse polarity.  You can not connect the drive transistors together and need to let the motor briefly coast through this portion.  The time that the motors are undriven (commutation) is often called dead time.  In control systems, there is often a delay between actuation of an element and when the physicals action happens.  This is not modelled by classical PDE analysis.  However, structures like a PID can handle this type of dead time without modification, but parameter tuning must take into account this 'dead time'.  Example search FODT control, which is common for thermal systems.  Finally, the 'dead time' can be in a signal.  For instance, it is common in audio to refer to silence as 'dead time'.  So an inactive signal can be referred to as 'dead time'.  There are obvious parallels to the motor commutations. This seems to be the thrust of what Thydzik is saying; the article is referring to 'system dead time' (and mainly composed for special applications that are only of note to a physicist, when it is much more generic)  66.244.255.122 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses
Talk:Laborious Extra-Orbital Vehicle

message: Just wanted to put something in. I will elaborate on it later.
  n00body --156.56.138.97 15:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Computing
Talk:Baal (demon)

message: I was shocked by reading "Christian demon"... I'm quite sure (Roman Catholic) Christianty doesn't believe in demons, or alike. What do "Christian" means here? It's not stated nor linked... Maybe Medieval Christianty or something? --euyyn 11:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demons in Christianty? 

message: Should this page be merged with the god Baal, as the demon described on this page is basically a christian interpretation of the aforementioned god? Many gods of polytheistic belief systems were regarded as "demons" by early Christianity, as they were seen as a form of idol worship. In the Dictionaire Infernal, the Hindu goddess Kali is listed as a demon, and many other deities who are listed on Wikipedia have also been regarded as demons by various sources. Further, several of the articles on these deities include descriptions of various misinterpretations of the beliefs of those who worshiped them, including the artile on the god Baal. Are the differences between the Semetic god and the demon based off of it different enough that the Christian demon is effectively a completely different being, or should these articles be merged?--66.24.229.7 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge topic 

message: Why does this article use the word Levant to refer to part of the middle east? Not very relevant considering it's a outdated, imprecise medieval term. However I'm not aware of which area the author is referring to and therefore cannot amend. 61.95.65.186 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levant? 

message: I have pruned, linked to the main article, and spun out other to Baal in popular culture. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication with [[Baal]]

message: This is an embarrassingly poor inclusion. Aside from the Christian fundamentalist web page in source link 3, no Celtic Studies scholar would agree with the etymological root of the modern Beltaine (itself an borrowing of the Old Irish Beltaine, arguably derived from proto-Celtic belo-te(p)niâ) being derived from a common origin with the English Baal. There is also no etymological or established cultural link between Samhain and Baal, nor Baal and the term "Halloween" for that matter. This segment should be removed from the article, unless self-published fundamentalist Christian web pages are acceptable sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.79.185 (talk • contribs) 
:I've removed that material (and re-written and moved the article), since Bael the demon is only inspired by the Biblical depictions of the Canaanite deity (who is not connected to the Celtic Belenus at any rate). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baal and Halloween
Talk:Naseer Shamma

message: Is the village of Kut mentinoed in this article the same as the article Kut. If so it's hardly a village (pop. 400,000) -- Mariocki 15:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to meet #6 of WP:MUSIC, but it's iffy. Karmafist 15:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone has already pointed out that this article is in desperate need of references. Here is an example of why those references are essential:
The article claims that; 
: "Music reading with the participation of the artist Aziz Khyoun in the Federation of Iraqi Writers, where he presented the Stranger on the Gulf and Rain Song to the great poet Badr Shakir al-Sayyab in 1986." 
This claim is truly remarkable since the great poet, al-Sayyab, died in 1964, 12 years before this performance supposedly took place!!!! In fact, the article's subject, Nasser Shamma, was born in 1963, so he would have to have been just one year old when he supposedly composed these two poems and gave this performance during the great Iraqi poet's lifetime. In light of these inconsistencies, readers are left wondering whether this is a typographical error, or whether the entire thing is a fabrication? But sadly, in the absence of any reference, there is no way to check this out.
And, if the article can get it so wrong in this passage, then surely it raises serious doubts about the accuracy of the entire piece. BronHiggs (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  References desperately needed- inconsistencies in facts raises serious questions about the accuracy of the entire article
Talk:For He's a Jolly Good Fellow

message: The "nobody can deny" line is not an Americanism.  It is found, among others, in James Joyce's "The Dead".  I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: American (?) Lyrics

message: Is their some sort of race to claim the world and its culture going on here on wikipedia that emotionally and mentally healthy people aren't aware of?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.178.252 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely is that at some point the article had "... is a British song..." and someone added "American", or the other way round. Anyway, the fix is simple. :) Shreevatsa (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  American and british song? 

message: Places to find info about "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow": 
This article could definitely use improvement.    Sharktopus talk 14:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding more and better citations 

message: The list needs to be trimmed, and I just deleted some examples that were randomly placed in sections like "See Also" and "References". The song has potentially been performed thousands of times and we don't need to list them all. The one I added, from iCarly, is an example of one that should be kept because the context of its use is as part of a plot point because Happy Birthday wasn't public domain and this is stated on screen as the reason for singing Jolly Good Fellow. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture uses

message: Really needs a citation because the assertion is demonstrably false. If the first part is sung without pause, it's 8 measures long, a very standard metrical grouping. This suggests that only a fermata is indicated.
2602:306:CC83:FE0:B95D:ACCA:CE10:882C (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pause length

message: Can someone confirm that the Irish version is correct?  It looks to be the same as the British one with "sunsé" in place of "so say".  A cursory search for "sunsé" hasn't turned up any definition that would fit the context.  As there's no citation, I might delete it if nobody objects.
Z57N (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish version

message: In James Joyce's The Dead, the group sing, "For they are jolly gay fellows," presumably to the same tune. Does anyone know if this was Joyce's invention? Did the use of "gay" instead of good exist elsewhere, before or since? Czrisher (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gay Fellow" in general and "For they are jolly gay fellows" in particular
Talk:The Chaos Theory

message: The writing in this article is horrible.  Someone who knows about this artist/album should rewrite this entry to be more comprehensible.  If you need help, I can point out specific sentences and/or constructions that are problematic.  I would fix it myself, but I am not familar enough with the subject of this entry to do it justice. Rangek 16:19, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
You do not need knowledge of the subject to alter it's grammar and improve it, you dolt. Stop whinin' and pull down that stupid "copyediting" sign. You can do it...remove those so-called "grammar errors" which you percieve. I have done my part, and will have no part in this non-sense. But I accept the help, so point out the "problematic" sentences - It would amuse me. You seem to know alot about what's horrible writing and not, educate me. And that "someone", would be me.....you lazy bum.--OleMurder 18:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here we go.  I will fix it up the best I can and you can sheck to make sure I haven't lost any meaning, okay? Rangek 19:05, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
It's check, not sheck. Anyways, I'm impressed. I'll get back to this article, and you, I may have a reward in back-hand for your efforts puttin' up with my naggin' bullshit and, well, you're both patient and tolerant I see. Well done - Short and professional-sounding.--OleMurder 19:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs No Longer Copyediting 
Talk:Cincinnati Reds

message: The Reds from 1876 to 1879, were not the team kicked out of the National League due to the sale of beer in their ballpark and the rental of their ballpark. It was a team called the Cincinnati Stars. During the 1880 season, there was no Reds club, they disbanded after the 1879 season and were replaced by a new team called the Stars. The Stars were owned by Justus Thorner. SCSRdotorg (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: The Reds were not kicked out in 1880

message: Just to give you heads-up, the second incarnation of the Reds were not kicked out of the NL for playing Sunday games. It was the rental of the park to other baseball teams on Sundays. Cincinnati never had Sunday baseball on a major league level until 1884. SCSRdotorg (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday baseball in the early years. 
Talk:Conversation

message: The "Banter" subsection is clearly a collection of opinions from one person (or a small number of people), with no apparent sources, and IMO is not well written for an encyclopedia because part of it seems like advice instead of definition and description. I happen to think most of what it says is probably true, and I happen to think that the advice is probably pretty good advice - but Wikipedia isn't the place for advice (not even good advice), and things written on Wikipedia need clear sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection "Banter" 

message: "Conversation" (unlike e.g. Etiquette, Discourse, Debate, Public speaking) is not a recognized analytical category of linguistics, philosophy, sociology etc., and I see no appeal to other attested antecedents from history or contemporary media etc.
The academic works cited (Thornbury & Slade 2006, Warren 2006) are explicitly using conversation as a novel lens for research in their respective fields (English language teaching, natural language). Warren: "While there seems to be no generally accepted definition of conversation, if one reads through sufficient literature dealing with the analysis of conversation, it is possible to gradually piece together a working definition of what constitutes a conversation from the many attempts that have been made."
The structure and presentation of this article (particularly the unsourced & apparently original Classification taxonomy) give a misleading impression of authority, while the content is a hodgepodge of dubious observations and editorializing. 
Wiktionary has this covered—recommend delete & merge relevant content, if any, into Conversation analysis, Sociolinguistics, Social psychology, Language education, Sociology of language, Linguistic anthropology etc. Dpj aok (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. Even the question of whether "conversation" should exist as its own separate article aside, the article itself as written has a lot of sections that read more like someone giving their own personal advice and opinions rather than an objective description of the phenomenon. 142.114.168.229 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article exist?
Talk:Edwin Markham

message: I would like to add the poem "The Right Kind of People" to wikisource, if it is out of copyright.  However, I don't know when it was published.  It was published in "The Best Loved Poems of the American People" in 1936, but in that case it might still be in copyright.  Any idea when and where it was first published?  Thanks.  Jrincayc 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any idea when The Right Kind of People was published? 

message: The California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County points to this article for the landmark:  Edwin Markham House. Please use the Template:Infobox historic site to update the article with the following citation #1 and citation #2. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That template is for articles about historical sites. This is an article about a person, it does not belong here. Melcous (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Landmark
Template talk:COTWs

message: I'd like to remove all the country COT[X]s. They are all quite obviously dead. Spanish Translations I'm not sure about; Gaming COTW is living on a tricke charge. The only Collaborations that don't perpetually appear to be on the brink of death are AID and the original COTW. -Litefantastic 16:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian COTW has been changed to a Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, and is alive and well. As for the other countries listed, while their pulse is fading, they are still active.--Cyberjunkie 02:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm going to change the order, so items are sorted by topic. Maurreen 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a good idea, since people are more intrested in topic, than how it's schedualed. --Barberio 13:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) Maurreen 18:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way we can possibly shortern the template? Otherwise it tends to be too long, covering text in the COTW pages (for example, see WP:USCOTW, where this template covers the nomination instructions). Thanks, AndyZ t 20:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topical outline 

message: Is that better? Maurreen 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to have a show/hide link using the NavFrame and etc classes or would this disrupt too many collaboration pages? --Squilibob 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Wiki, try it. -- Omniplex 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortened 

message: For a discussion about the edit link see the  talk page.
For issues like align=right (floating), colour scheme, width, and line
breaks see the  talk page, it's more or
less the same problem for various "sidebar" templates.  -- Omniplex 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout questions 

message: I think it would be good to have another option listing current articles in collaboration. Then people could easily see about related articles in COTWs. Maurreen 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current articles in collaboration

message: Would WP:100K be appropriate for this template? - David Gerard 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:100K

message: Just changing the text a tad - a number of collaborations are biweekly / monthly / ongoing... changing a little of the text to reflect this... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating to reflect other collabs

message: WP:Collaborations describes a "collaboration" as:
Please make sure that pages added here specifically deal with single article collaborations, e.g. a Collaboration of the Month (COTM). This template is not a Wikiproject listing.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion requirement for this template