lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Daniel Rutherford

message: I cut two of the three external links on Daniel Rutherford because they gave very short life summaries (one or two paragraphs) that didn't say much more than was in the article already, and what was different I put in. It could do with a link to a longer bio of Rutherford ... - David Gerard 20:08, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
:Alright, that's reasonable. I'll go find a longer page, I guess. Ilyanep 20:28, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 'Daniel Rutherford discovered nitrogen by the isolation of the particle in 1772.' Not sure what the reference to 'particle' means. Should it be another word?
'The remaining oxygen did not support combustion, and a mouse could not live in it.' Should the word 'oxygen' be 'air'.
Skywatcher200 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 
Talk:Scotchtoberfest

message: This surely can't be a seriously-meant entry! -- Tarquin 21:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

message: *Scotchtoberfest - doesn't merit its own article IMO. Dori | Talk 18:07, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
**Keep but needs cleaning up. Apparently this has become a real event since invention by the makers of the Simpsons... -- Graham  :) 18:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From VfD
Talk:Segmented memory

message: The article is some kind of gibberish.
Could someone who knows about the subject please fix it ?
I agree, this is total nonsense, it should be removed until someone fixes it.
I've been programming for over 30 years and have never seen such mislead information. Gads! I've added a second paragraph that I believe is accurate. Somebody aught to kill that first paragraph though, it is junk!
I killed it, and wrote something that makes sense.  Note that segmentation has been around a lot longer than Intel (former 2nd) paragraph.  I've referenced Multics (and even it wasn't first), and put the Intel stuff in its own section.  --Wws 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

message: There were many processors which had memory segmentation schemes well before the 8080. The DEC pdp-11 (early '70s) comes to mind, with segmented memory (32 byte segments in 8x8KB pages, with read/write access protection). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.7.98 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originated in the 8080? Please! 

message: I don't know enough about computer memory to know what's redundant and what isn't; but it seems like "segmented memory" and "segmentation (memory)" both refer to the same thing. Unlike the memory segment article, which is supposed to be x86-specific, these two articles both seem like generic terms with no difference between them to me. 128.113.149.103 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bunch of stuff to the segmentation (memory) page, and redirected this page to that page, as that page seemed to be a bit better. Guy Harris 04:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Paris Observatory

message: Why is the architect "probably" Perrault? Is there a doubt? Wetman 00:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Architect

message: According to BBC:
 The Paris Observatory tells the world every six months
 whether to add or subtract a second from atomic clocks,
 the standard for everyday timekeeping.
I think it is an important thing to be mentioned. 133.44.1.220 18:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leap second addition

message: AKA
L'horloge parlante officielle française de l'Observatoire de Paris.
Notable I think.
Hamish.MacEwan (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's first Talking Clock. 
Talk:Traci Harding

message: *Traci Harding - I have never heard of this 'Australian novelist'; it's obviously a self-promotional entry
**Delete. - UtherSRG 04:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Uta Hagen

message: there's a bad redirect here from the movie title "the other" to a page discussing "the other" as a philisophical concept.  I tried to edit this and realized I'm not sure how to change a redirect.
:I changed the link from The Other to The Other (movie) (which I don't think there's an article on yet). Angela. 00:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This entry has been repeatedly spammed by Jason Bennett and his supporters. If this spam appears again, it should be deleted. Mr. Bennett's Wikipedia entry has been deleted for not being notable and his spam has been removed many times. Please help keep Wikipedia a place for sharing information not advertising. Tree Trimer 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop the Jason Bennett Spammers

message: The recent edit removing the award from the intro line is in line with standard practice on Wikipedia and shouldn't be reinstated. It's enough to mention awards/nominations in the article. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock
Talk:Thrush (bird)

message: Grammar corrections - comment at Talk:Old_World_warbler -MPF 02:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that there has been no suggestion to do away with the disambiguation page. --Yath 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, so. Thrush shouldn't be just for a simple little bird. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: * Quite.  There can be a disambig for the other reasons. A google search on +thrush +bird shows more than twice as many hits as +thrush +candida and more than four times as +thrush +candidiasis. Put the bird at thrush and you're rewarding people for using sensible search terms and educating people who don't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think 2:1 is high enough that the bird can be considered a strongly dominant usage. Rd232 19:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Birds are the primary thrushes and should be at thrush. Thrush is now a redirect to Thrush (disambiguation), and should be deleted to make way for thrush (bird) to be moved. --Yath 01:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that there has been no suggestion to do away with the disambiguation page. --Yath 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, so. Thrush shouldn't be just for a simple little bird. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: * Quite.  There can be a disambig for the other reasons. A google search on +thrush +bird shows more than twice as many hits as +thrush +candida and more than four times as +thrush +candidiasis. Put the bird at thrush and you're rewarding people for using sensible search terms and educating people who don't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think 2:1 is high enough that the bird can be considered a strongly dominant usage. Rd232 19:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thrush (bird)]] &rarr; [[Thrush]]

message: Anyone know what the etymology is? Seems worthy of a section Corevette (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology?
Talk:Dallas Cowboys

message: Cowboys 193 since 1990
Denver 325 since 1970
Steelers 335 since 1972
Washington 364 games since 1967
Packers 374 since 1961 (285 at green bay and 89 games played in Milwaukee)
 
So you better change it or I will.
Agreed: the citation for the sentence about the Cowboys' alleged streak of sold-out games, which seems there just to prove a point about "America's Team" rather than being on-subject for the header of this article, does not even corroborate the claim that they have such a streak, let alone that that streak is an NFL record. Moreover, I searched for anywhere else online to corroborate that claim and I could not find anything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:67A8:230:ECBA:CB34:80B0:50EF (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dallas NOT top consecutive sell out stadium games. 

message: Add in the playoff births 2023, the cowboys clinched a postseason birth: https://www.nfl.com/news/cowboys-clinch-third-straight-trip-to-postseason-following-losses-by-packers-fal 47.19.209.234 (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2023 

message: Add that the cowboys clinched a playoff birth in the exact same format as this edit (minus the formatting error of course.) 108.58.27.76 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2023 

message: Jimmy Johnson is now in the ring of honor 132.147.159.141 (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024 

message: Update 'Cowboys-Packers rivalry' section information to reflect the current record of 22-17 Packers in the regular season and 5-4 Packers in the playoffs 2403:580C:4786:0:8806:CBAB:90D8:E43E (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024
Talk:José Miguel Agrelot

message: The table included in this article is unique to this article.  Do we want this strange table to be included here and nowhere else? RickK 02:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Agrelot's influence in radio (even beyond Puerto Rico, as El Vacilón de la Mañana fans may be a witness to), is way underreported here. There's little talk about his 200+ comedic characters, particularly his better known ones such as Don Cholito, Don Pulula, Speedy Gonzalez, Pasión, Serafín Sin Fin y Sin Meta, Soldado Manteca, and many others (as well known as Torito Fuertes). This needs a cleanup, and a good one... Demf 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a cleanup, badly

message: As to not produce a lopsided article that leans way too much on just one of Agrelot's many creatvity outlets, I strongly suggest that Don Cholito (Agrelot's alter ego) get his own article. Agrelot himself would have suggested this; he repeatedly stated that Don Cholito was his alter ego, but wanted people to consider it a character, not an extension of his personality. Of course, most Puerto Ricans never cared about the difference; to them, Don Cholito and Agrelot are one and the same. Any comments about this?Demf 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don Cholito deserves its own article
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

message: There's currently a discussion at  regarding a proposal to split that page. Although split proposals aren't usually advertised via RFC (to my knowledge), I find myself agreeing with , who thought it might be worth asking if this proposal should be (in order to collect more input). In addition, as a non-article page, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians isn't currently being sorted into . I'm inclined to think that, in this instance, it might be worth ignoring the rule that RfCs are not for splitting a page.
I just wanted to ask here if editors thought that adding an RFC tag to the top of the proposal would be appropriate. (As a side note, if an RFC tag is added, what would be the best topic areas to sort it into? ?)
All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good case for IAR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @A smart kitten, I think you've picked the right topic areas to tag.  Regardless of whether you tag the split proposal as an RFC (I think it's okay), the advice in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for the feedback :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would an RFC be okay in this situation? 

message: So i am trying to make an RfC about me wanting to add some additional sources + other questions and stuff.  on one of my talk pages, but when I first published the RfC, the quote of my talk page isnt showing. 
Location of my rfc: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All (specifically at the science, maths and technology section) My RfC is "Talk:Light skin", the quote of my talk page isnt showing, kindly help me with this. have a good day.
I am new to wikipedia (4 days old) so i am not familiar with codings 
Kindly help me with this. thanks Rainbluetiful (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rainbluetiful, you have an WP:RFCBRIEF problem.  The bot will not post a 1400+ word long "question".  Look at the others in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and see if you can add a similarly short "question" to the top of your RFC section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohh i see, thanks for the tip. I'm new to these kinds of stuff. Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

text: And how many words can the bot accept in order for it to show? Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't try to start another RfC. I have replied at Talk:Light skin#RfC about East Asians. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  URGENT: I have an issue starting with my RfC, and some errors too.
Talk:Pionium

message: Does anybody know what Pionium decays into? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.250.6 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 February 2004
Considering that \pi^+ and \pi^- are antiparticles, I believe the decay would be a simple annihilation. SamuelRiv 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pionium decay 

message: The article states The DIRAC collaboration was able to detect more than 5000 pionium break ups from a total of 6.4 x 108 events,  Presumably this should be 6.4 x 108, but I'd rather someone with an idea of what it's actually talking about took a look as I haven't a clue whether that's right. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  6.4 times what? 

message: What was the experimentally-observed lifetime? --JWSchmidt 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  lifetime 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Pionic atom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Pionic atom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pionic atom" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:I've fallen, and I can't get up!

message: It's grammatically unnecessary. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the comma? 

message: Now that Mr.Ollie having marked the target article COI (and 'TruthTurbin' seems to have stopped pestering that article), and seeing that a merge proposal of 18 months ago had ended on no conclusion, and also seeing that the single objection from even earlier is no longer applicable, since the (yes, a slogan) "facts on the ground" have changed, ... that's why I did the merge. I'll wait a bit to see if your reaction HERE was the same as that of Mr.Ollie there (to 'TruthTurbin' -and, from what I've seen, he's done well elsewhere too). Yes, my merge needs a 
cleanup/followup, but the purpose of this response to your "take it to the talk page" is for you, of course, but also for those who  later on look at what's been done here. Admittedly this Why Now is a bit long.  Nuts240 (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I remember when 'I've fallen and I can't get up' was a national punch line, much like I learned it by watching you. I say it's notable enough to warrant its own article. Bkatcher (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a draft about the (now late) actress who said those words. Did you know that she was only paid $60 for her initial work? Perhaps we can see how the wikiworld seems then. I too have long-ago memories of stuff, and I can hear an echo of a song from my late mother, which, translated into English (I think she learned it from HER mother) is: What was, was, and is no more. The days run away every year, every hour. As for me, I'd ask: Can you recall feeling cheated when the nickel chocolate bar became six cents? Nuts240 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Why merge now
Talk:The London Gazette

message: It is claimed here that the [Belfast] News Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Letter is the oldest newspaper still in publication in the English-speaking world. 1737
depending on the criteria for a "news paper", compared to a subscription based paper?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.30.95 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest English language Newspaper Ambiguity?

message: Is it true that grants of arms are recorded in the London Gazette? I can't find any example of this in their archives. Marnanel 05:19, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant of Arms

message: Many of our citations to the LG refer to a "supplement", but this is not mentioned in the article. Can someone familiar with the LG add a few words about the supplement, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplement 

message: Perhaps it is a cockup not a conspiracy but the old URL is unreachable today. On the other hand, the recent URL (thegazette.co.uk) works fine. Anyone know anything about writing bots, as I suspect that we have thousands of citations that will need replacing if this is deliberate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Should any links to the Gazette that are "ordinary" links (particularly those in Wikipedia:London Gazette Index) be changed to links using the  template? Aaronjbaylis (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  london-gazette.co.uk doesn't seem to work any more?
Talk:Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport

message: Surely the former president's name isn't spelled wrong in the name of the airport? john 06:12, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Pengshui Miao and Tujia Autonomous County

message: There was an error in the name of one town: 桑枯, it should be 桑柘(Shangzhe). I have updated it accordingly. I am from that town, so trust me.
A few more errors that have been corrected are as follows:
The pinyin for 自治县 is zizhixian instead of zhizhixian.
The pinyin for 鄂西 is exi instead of hexi.
The pinyin for 仡佬 is gelao instead of yilao.
Renxi (潤溪鄉) should be Runxi
Lidao (棣棠鄉) should be Litang
Meiziwu (梅子埡鄉) should be Meiziya 
Dayou (大埡鄉) should be Daya
This is a sentence in the original article,
On November 16, 1949, Pengshui was overtook by the communists
where "overtook" should be "overtaken".
Besides, the article mentions a minor nationality, Tong. I am not sure if the original author meant 侗.  If she or he did, then the pinyin for that character should be Dong instead of Tong when it refers to the kind of minor nationality in China.
-- Anon
: Great job spotting those errors! Keep it up. This is the spirit of Wiki: Cooperate and improve! Good work. --Menchi (Talk)â 09:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Talk:First Baptist Church of Jacksonville

message: The controversy section here is overblown. First, it has more information than the actual description of the church. Second, some of the "controversies" aren't even real- many groups were against the amphitheatre (of course, they were all wrong :) ), and the ministry for the "sexually broken" hasn't attracted any more controversy than other similar groups, as far as I and google can tell. There is also no description of why the lighthouse was controversial. Third, the reference links are all useless to anyone who is not a subscriber to the Times-Union. As much as I hate to defend Baptists, I'll be removing all but the Muhammed controversy, which was national, if no one fixes this.--Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It all seems silly and subjective. User:kevinsnow t 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Cúchullain t/c 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: All attendance numbers need reliable sources. I've found some from the Florida Times-Union; though they're a few years old, they're not likely to be too far off the mark. One of the sources specifically speaks about the difference between registered members and the actual attendance, a distinction pastor Brunson himself is clear on. In the infobox I went with the number given in the more recent source specifically for weekly attendance, which it put at 7500.--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I misread the source; the 7,500 figure is for Sundays. The distinction is important because there are also Wednesday services (though many of the attendants probably go to both.) At any rate we need to go with what the sources say.--Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Attendance vs. membership

message: Why is the article in the categories Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage and Organizations that oppose LGBT rights? In its present state the article says nothing on the topic. deisenbe (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same-sex marriage 
Wikipedia talk:OpenFacts

message: In adding links inside () the closing ) will be part of the link. The link will resolve incorrectly. For example (http://www.example.org) will resolve http://www.example.org).
There are in the following paragraph 4 links that resolve incorrectly: "Besides OpenFacts, the government sponsored BerliOS project also offers a hosting platform for open source projects (http://developer.berlios.de), a news service for documentation (http://docswell.berlios.de), a developer database (http://devcounter.berlios.de) and an announcement service for open source software (http://sourcewell.berlios.de). BerliOS tries to be an OSS coordination center, and to provide the "missing link" between open source developers and companies."
This need to be changed to be less like a press release and more like a regular entry --Yakovsh 02:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:DNA computing

message: I don't know anything about this subject but maybe somebody knowledgeable  should comment about this article in Science Magazine: [] . Tsf (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That article Genetic circuit design automation seems to be about computation or logic in cells - not sure if that is in the scope of this article which seems about DNA computing in test tubes. - Rod57 (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cello: automatic genetic circuit design 

message: In History it mentions Jan 2013 and Aug 2016 news of data storage in DNA (it seems to be covered in DNA digital data storage and can be deleted from here ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose deletion of mentions of purely data storage with no computation 

message: This article seems a good resource for (the history of) DNA computing: [] Note that Leonard Adleman, who is called "The inventor of DNA computing" on the Wiki page, is not mentioned at all in this article. Monpqr (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference article for history