lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tim Martin (businessman)

message: There has been some recent editing between Norwich and Belfast. The Guardian, 2002 states Norwich. The Belfast Telegraph, 2015 has Belfast. A search of the England and Wales Birth Registration Index turns up a "Timothy R Martin" born in "Apr-Jun 1955" in "Norwich Outer", mother's surname "Shiells" (primary source, I know). Searching the General Register Office Northern Ireland costs money. Unless someone can come up with better sources, we should prefer Norwich as Martin's birthplace. Edwardx (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Dormskirk (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall they said Norwich on Desert Island Discs.  But his parents had roots in Northern Ireland.  I've (re)added some details from the existing linked sources, but there is much more that could be said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.74.88.7 (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: The article is using a mixture.  If it really is Weatherspoon singular adn there's a "s", there should be an apostrophe? Crisper23 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoon or Spoons? 
Talk:Firm offer

message: If the term is used internationally, more info needed. --SueHay 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, the article might be changed so as to refer to the term as a concept in United States contract law, and to include references to other pages accordingly Gmpm (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Internationalize

message: This article needs to be cleaned up and formatted correctly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.15.194 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:Thomas Williams of Llanidan

message: This web page refers to:
There's no mention of Birmingham in the article. Does anyone know more about this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birmingham
Talk:First Bank of Nigeria

message: this bank is purcashable in the US  under the ticker sysmbol AFK. african ETF has many fiffrent components but this first bank of nigeria is one of the largest. so its not like its some small company that no one knows about.
99.51.212.6 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  this should mention it being in the Africa ETF
Talk:Food and Drink Federation

message: Is this a government department or a business association?  Unclear.  --SueHay 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Women's Development Bank

message: Does this organization have any presence online? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homepage 

message: This article does list references, but they should be verified using additional reliable and neutral third-party sources. It also lacks inline citations. I replaced Template:Unreferenced with Template:Unreliable sources, Template:Refimprove and Template:No footnotes. Recdep (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Issues
Talk:The Wall Street Journal Europe

message: It has been suggested that The Wall Street Journal Asia and The Wall Street Journal Europe be merged into The Wall Street Journal. I agree per WP:CFORK and WP:DICDEF, as they are essentially duplicates. These are three on essentially the same subject, with the same scope. Describing the working, format, circulation and readership. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose on the grounds that The Wall Street Journal is already large enough, at 86k, and the Asia and European editions had a large circulation in their respective areas over several decades (suggesting that independently notability is likely). Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:The Wall Street Journal Asia

message: It has been suggested that The Wall Street Journal Asia and The Wall Street Journal Europe be merged into The Wall Street Journal. I agree per WP:CFORK and WP:DICDEF, as they are essentially duplicates. These are three on essentially the same subject, with the same scope. Describing the working, format, circulation and readership. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

message: In the charges section, the article uses the phrase "€35 million-dollar contract" which is stupid as it identifies two currencies with the same quantitative value.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.94.235 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  error 

message: Lots of potential citations - https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=ndjlepp -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 05:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tjb266 (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Social Informatics - ITI 200 Section 91

message: — Assignment last updated by Rc1248 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Social Informatics - ITI 200 Section 90
Talk:John MacEnery

message: *Those Splendid Priests Consulted early on with Dean Buckland. Sir Sir Joseph Prestwich published some of JM's scattered notes. Pengelly published more later.
*History of Torqua
*Dragon Seekers
*History, gazetteer and directory of the county of Devon
*Overview Buckland cited Cuvier as an authority for the youth of the human race. 
Rwflammang (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Some references

message: An anonymous editor has twice now reversed the primary point of this article. The primary point is that MacEnery demonstrated the antiquity of Homo sapiens, while the anonymous editor claims the opposite.
The primary point has stood since the creating editor first made this article. There are several references cited in support of it. If the anonymous editor thinks the cited sources do not support the conclusion, he should explain why here. If he thinks the sources are wrong, he should cite counter sources. Either way, it should be discussed here on the talk page.
Rwflammang (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits 
Talk:Operation Walküre

message: Operation Walküre should not redirect back to the July 20 Plot page. Operation Walküre was a separate contingency plan that doesn't deal directly with the July 20 Plot--Davidwiz 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's why I finally replaced the redirect with a stub. -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Why is the article's title half in English and half in German? We should choose one or the other.
:Yeah, I'm kinda inclined to agree here. Contrary to its confusing popularity with pizza parlours, the article is still called Blue cheese, not Bleu cheese. Seeing as how the opening to the article says, Operation Valkyrie and Unternehmen Walküre, I don't see why the article title wouldn't be one of those as well. 209.90.135.60 (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, more questions. How does one change an article title? And which of the two options is better? The English title would ordinarily be my choice, but in this case, it could be confused with the movie. --Komm Hoffnung (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:Modern Trader

message: There is another magazine called Futures, The journal of policy, planning and futures studies  --217.64.242.138 13:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another
Talk:Blastomere

message: "About 90 minutes after fertilization, the zygote divides into two cells." - With what reference? According to Biology by Campbell & Reece (sixth edition) does the first division of the human zygote complete 36 hours after fertilization, followed by the second at 60 hours and third by 72 hours. Zewz (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:George S. Day

message: because:
* There are citations at all
* Infobox has nothing much
* Books do not have ISBN, publication details
* Nothing on the person as a person (birth year, some information on personal life)
* Formatting issues (the "Contents" list looks odd)
* Too many red links; the books just don't seem notable enough for their own articles
* Not enough details (exactly which department did he teach in at Stanford?)
Churn and change (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessing article
Talk:Simon Lappin

message: --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source material
Talk:Gerber multitool

message: One of the spring arms on my gerber vise broke off, I've owned it a month, whatever metal they use fatigues far too easily.
60.234.140.207 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Product review

message: Hi All,
I have removed images as requested in the tag. In total I took three. But have kept the file names and codes here below in case anyone has issues.
As a side note: I love Gerber...
File:Gerber_Legend_800_%2B_Surefire_Z3.JPG|Gerber Multi-tool Legend 800 + Surefire Combatlight Z3
File:Gerber Vise 3.JPG|Gerber Vise, only side tools opened
(MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Image removal
Talk:Globes (newspaper)

message: I feel this should be moved to "Globes (news)", or some such title, because I'm not sure the article I came here from was talking about balls, and I doubt many people are looking for this at "maps"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junulo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. As you get to know wikipedia, you'll learn how articles are named, when they might be required to be renamed, and when disambiguation pages are created. In this case, 'Globes' is a proper noun and name of a newspaper. 'Globe' is a noun, or type of ball in your case, and I assume that the suitable place for any entry is on wikitionary. --Shuki 08:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move
Talk:James Gustave Speth

message: Shouldn't the link to the Yale School of Forestry go to a Wikipedia entry? Sbermingham 17:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Harvard Business Review

message: I think it would be useful for the page to describe what it costs for an academic library (or a city library) to subscribe to the Harvard Business Review.  Does anyone know a reliable source for this information?  An initial search seems to suggest that HBR may consider its price to be secret, since their website doesn't even hint at having different prices for libraries versus individuals.  But from the Open Access movement, we know this is very likely to be true. Gnuish (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know this information. But I suspect finding reliable sources talking about it may be difficult. RayScript (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of HBR to libraries?
Talk:Replicon (genetics)

message: The article should explain the evolutionary significance of the replicon concept.  
I would suggest that replicons are important because they describe the genetic system of the organism at a high level and the genetic system has an important effect on its evolution. Replicons represent separate replicating entities and therefore have their own fitness, separate and sometimes in conflict with the fitness of the organism.  This needs citations Drhealthcaredata (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  significance
Talk:Drusilla (daughter of Herod Agrippa)

message: 1. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drusilla_(daughter_of_Agrippa_I) "Josephus states that they had a son named Marcus Antonius Agrippa and a daughter Antonia Clementiana. Their son perished together with his mother, Drusilla, in Mount Vesuvius in 79." [note 7: "Mentioned in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.2, and in a lost section of the work."] 2. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius "Along with Pliny the Elder, the only other noble casualties of the eruption to be known by name were Agrippa (a son of the Jewish princess Drusilla and the procurator Antonius Felix) and his wife." [note 29 "Mentioned in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, xx.7.2, and in a lost section of the work."] 3. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonius_Felix "Felix and the Judean Drusilla, had a son, Marcus Antonius Agrippa, who died along with his [whose?] wife in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius." [this one has no documentation]
So who was it that died? Agrippa and his mother, Agrippa and his wife, or was it possibly all three of them?
Wawruckhemmett (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it took awhile, but its been fixed! That little nugget was rewritten in by an IP, as their only input into wikipdia. The original text was lifted straight from the catholic encyclopedia, and it only says Marcus and his wife.(and was credited to Josephus) One specific source (an article about the marriages of Felix) states that the last record of Drusilla was her presence alongside her husband at a meeting with Paul.(as does our article). So its gone. Curdle (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  DISCREPENCY PROBLEM
Talk:Prophage

message: Requires more frequent citation and more sources. What are the sources for paragraph 1? JWIK (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: — Assignment last updated by Efjager (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Microbial Symbiosis and Microbiomes
Talk:Ori (genetics)

message: I'm pretty sure this article shouldn't end mid-sentence!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.250.33 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not finished 

message: Why are there seperate pages for ORI and origin of replication?
If a difference exists between the two terms, the explanation is surely missing. 
If not, then the term 'Ori' should redirect to the 'Origin of replication' page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin fed (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a valid remark. I also just noted down that the main article says "origin of replication", which is technically correct, but then claims that the name is oriC - and people may be confused as to why the "C" suddenly appears there. The C stands for "chromosomal origin" but technically, that is just about the same as origin of replication in a bacterial chromosome right? Either way it is a bit confusing right now, still almost 10 years after the above comment. ;) 2A02:8388:1641:3580:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ori and origin of replication
Talk:East Prigorodny conflict

message: Ossetian-Ingush conflict →  — The article was newly created in lieu of Ossetian-Ingush conflict instead of being moved. Sorry, I didn't know. Please merge the histories. --Yalens (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ✓ Done -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for history merger

message: The article was recently remanes into "East Prigorodny War" without explanations. Please provide the reasons and evidence that this engagement is called "War" more often than "Conflict". Staszek Lem (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This article only gives the Ingush version. Apparently, when the Ingush & Ossetians (Alans) were fighting, only Alans were taking hostages and raping, the Ingush didn't do anything of the kind. That is rather unbelievable.
I agree that the article is biased. While the infobox states that 9000 Ossetians were forced to become refugees, not a single sentence in the rest of the article bothers to explain why.
Also:Please sign your posts after you make a comment. You can do so by adding these four tildes:~~~~Dunutubble (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Human Rights Watch/Helsinki takes no position on the ultimate status of the Prigorodnyi region.http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/Russia.htm#P253_28425  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundo Vargas (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights Watch/Helsinki

message: The map in the article does not show Prigorodny District but rather Vladikavkaz and the surrounding district**s**. The page for the district itself has an accurate map but I don't know how to link to it.--AimingWinehouse (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong map?
Talk:Holding period return

message: I did a bit of clarifying, but I'm not sure the definition and math are correct. Someone who works with this regularly needs to look at it. -- SueHay 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Internal rate of return and rate of return, and think about the mathematics of averaging percentages. That's unreliable math. --SueHay 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify to what you refer, when you say, "That's unreliable math." Jonathan G. G. Lewis 17:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable definition

message: Is the following correct???
From quarterly holding period returns
To calculate an annual HPR from four quarterly HPRs:
If HPR1 through HPR4 are the holding period returns for four consecutive periods, the annual HPR is calculated as follows:
4th root out of(1 + HPR)= (1 + HPR1)(1 + HPR2)(1 + HPR3)(1 + HPR4) 
I would have thought since the returns are not annual, but quarterly, the annual return would be the product of the four variables...I am I thinking about this incorrectly??  If the four periods were annual periods, then I would have said the effective annual return is the 4th root of the product of the four variables...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SECulp (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the confusion here between holding period return and annualised return has been cleared up. Jonathan G. G. Lewis 17:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the calculation about the quarterly return correct? 

message: And who says it is "net income"?  Seems to me you can have a "net HPR" and a "gross HPR".  Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this point has been noted, and any reference to net or gross removed. Jonathan G. G. Lewis 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Net vs gross
Talk:Annealing (biology)

message: - pretty close to the same thing. can it be treated well by a single article? -- JetheroTalk 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather like conciseness. 129.176.151.10 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'annealing' is the proper term for this subject.  These two articles are referring to the same process.  I can't think of any exceptions. Theprawn46 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: to me Annealing is quite a specific term for the hybirdization process in PCR which is under control and is intended to happen. in my opinion this are the differences and so i suggest not to merge them. plus this article may be extended by adding sections that is related to PCR such as "the optimal environment for PCR", which is highly unlikely to be suitable to include in the NA hybirdization. meaningless (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not aware of annealing being used by most biologists to refer strictly to hybridization during PCR. However, a difference does exist, though it is a subtle one and probably does not warrant separating the terms into different entries. According to Weaver's [Molecular Biology], annealing is the general term, while hybridization is typically used to refer to the annealing of DNA molecules of different origins (for instance, genomic DNA being annealed to synthetic oligos, products of PCR-amplifying the same genomic region, or the genomic DNA from another member of the same organism). I would actually recommend combining DNA Denaturation, DNA Annealing, and Nucleic Acid Hybridization into a single, thorough entry. Nikolai Eroshenko (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with Nucleic acid hybridization
Talk:Sense strand

message: The article lacks encyclopedic tone and refers to the reader as "you".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.41.159 (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks encyclopedic tone 

message: the "sense(molecular_biology)" article has all the information in this article and more detail on the subject, so why is this article even here? can someone merge or "clean" the article? 73.243.250.179 (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  why not just move this to sense(molecular_biology)?
Talk:Individual branding

message: I've done a copy-edit pass-through on this article, as it read partly as a marketing textbook/lecture and partly as an advertisement. I wanted to make notes of some areas of improvements for this article I noticed while doing so.
I've applied the refimprove template for the reasons that:
# A number of citations are dubious (e.g. slideshare, random blogs)
# A few statements and figures need to be cited. I've marked them. Some do not clearly add to the subject as-is (see my last point below), but I've elected to leave them for the time being.
There are also a few statements that I believe need clarification or more concrete discussion, as they are highly vague (see the clarify tags). For instance, the advantage "Reduced corporate identity attached to a product allows brands to be positioned differently;" - a more concrete example or explanation of "positioned differently" (or a relevant link) would make it clearer to readers. Similarly, "Instability within a company can occur" - how does individual branding potentially lead to this?
Finally, I find that the Examples section is very "surface-level" - it shows that these gigantic companies have a number of brands, and mentions their numbers vaguely (non-sequitur?), but doesn't discuss how these companies make effective use of individual branding, or how it defined the company's early success, etc. - understanding the mechanics through the examples would make a more solid article IMO.
-- Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable citations, uncited statements and missing example information
Talk:Industrial Distribution

message: This article is very misleading in that when one does a search for "Industrial Distribution" this is the result. This would be akin to having the Wikipedia article Motor_(magazine) come up when looking for information about motors. It also seems like it's serving more of a platform for advertisement, which is inconsistent with the goals and aims of Wikipedia. I recommend
* Moving the page to Industrial Distribution_(magazine), to be consistent with other magazine pages that have similarly ambiguous titles.
* Creating a new page with the title of this one that describes Industrial Distribution as a field (similar to what the page Mechanical engineering does for its field). Sources of information on Industrial Distribution should include at least Texas A&M Industrial Distribution and University of Nebraska at Kearney Industrial Distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.216.6.120 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading at Best