lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:2006 Cincinnati Bengals season

message: It was a bad snap on the failed extra point attempt, not completely the holder's fault as implied by the phrase "right through his hands". 12.41.40.20 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Week 16 gaffe

message: Angleofadvantage 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two changes? 

message: I added the update tag to the regular season section.  Many of the game summaries are out-of-date.  A few read as if they were written within a week of the game and never touched again.
For instance, in the description of the first game against the Cleveland Browns it says that "Long time Bengal center, Rich Braham also suffered a leg injury and is expected to be out for some weeks."  The player in question never played another snap in his career and retired, with a ceremony taking place prior to the season finale.
Another example in the same game:  "The loss of so many starting players and possible unavailability of other key players is a concern for the upcoming game at Pittsburgh."  This reads like something out of a suspense novel instead of a factual, encyclopedic depitcion of the events.
From the game against the Patriots:  "This is a major change to last year's success in that area where Palmer was sacked only 21 times for the entire year. Already, this year, he's been sacked 16 times."  Both sentences are time-sensitive.  The author should use absolute times instead of relative, e.g. "This is a major change in comparison to the 2005 season, where Palmer was sacked only 21 times the entire year.  As of this early point in the 2006 season, he had been sacked 16 times." 
Additionally, the whole section just reads as a kind of fireside retelling of the goings on that season instead of simply a factual description of what happened every week.
Scottws 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game summaries need to be updated
Talk:Unrolled linked list

message: std::deque. prefer over std::list and std::vector. unfortunately noone does. sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.232.207 (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, std::deque is typically implemented using a variant of the dynamic array where active elements are placed in the middle of the array. There are implementations of std::list and std::deque based on unrolled linked lists, though. Deco 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:2006 Denver Broncos season

message: I'm under the impression that wikipedia is open to all users, and sights aren't "squatted on." I'd like to see some discussion on who contributes to this and other pages.  My belief is that who ever posts first is the one whose post sticks.  Edits can be made for sure, as well as links.  But to delete a whole entry to substitute it for your own seems too territorial, especially since it's all style, not facts.  It gets rather annoying to spend time posting an entry, only to have someone delete the whole entry because they like theirs better.  Since I can switch the entire entry back to mine, and then the other person can return fire, it seems pointless.  Thus, man rule time: who ever posts first is the submission that remains.  Edits can be made, but not entire rewrites.
Thoughts?
:Sorry bud, but it's just the way Wikipedia turns out to be sometimes. Even though you didn't mention it, I know you are referring directly to my edits. I'm going to be brutally honest about this: I like mine better. It's true. The way the synopses are written isn't very fun to read for me. If I want a drive-by-drive synopsis of the game, I'll read the play-by-play log. Or the recap. The way I write them can present all of the same facts, while improving the style and giving a more concise, easier-to-read synopsis. Sorry if I sound harsh about this, but it's the way I feel. Your versions also omit overall game stats, which would have to be tacked on in another cumbersome paragraph.
:Also, Wikipedia doesn't have any rules against rewriting original entries, since it is open to everybody, and it encourages you to Be Bold. I'm glad you brought this up for discussion, and since I'm a fair person, I'm alright with whoever writes the first entry for that specific game to be the one that stays, but note that I will probably still be making significant edits to it. bob rulz 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions 
Talk:Loe de Jong

message: As far as we know De Jong was not a journalist. He wrote from a scientific attitude, a historical one to be exactly. His major work was written (long) after the actual happening. B.t.w. he was in London when his subject of writing was going on on the continent. So: i suggest to change his cats etc into history, not journalism. -DePiep 11:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historian, not a journalist 

message: Is NPOV and also historically false, given the prehistory to the German invasion of Poland. I realize that this is a problem for those with a vested interest in a useful from of historiography. 105.0.6.104 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "German aggression against Poland"
Talk:William H. Crawford

message: Why is the template for "Secretaries of the War and Secretaries of the Army" a different color than all the rest?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.35 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template question 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:CRAWFORD, William H-Treasury (BEP engraved portrait).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 24, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-02-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:CRAWFORD, William H-Treasury (BEP engraved portrait).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: CORRECTION NEEDED:
    The Wikipedia article on William H. Crawford ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Crawford ) under “Legacy” lists Crawford County, Michigan as having been named after Crawford. No source is provided. 
    The article on Crawford County ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_County,_Michigan ), however, says “The county is named for Col. William Crawford,[5] a Revolutionary War soldier killed in 1782 while fighting Native Americans in Ohio. It was created by the Michigan Legislature in 1840 As Shawono County, then renamed Crawford County in 1843.”  A source is provided for that statement.
    Can the original drafter of this article please either provide a source for the statement that Crawford County, Michigan is named for William H. Crawford or else delete Crawford County, Michigan from being listed under Crawford's legacy?Berrienjohn (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crawford's Legacy
Talk:Type 38 rifle

message: Why no mention of the awkward 90 degree turn to cycle the bolt? 205.174.22.21 04:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: -TarenCapel 14:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "indigenously"?

message: I feel a merge would be appropriate and that Type 38 carbine, that is a particular type of rifle, be merged here.
:I agree, no need for an article for every sub-variant.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree, no need for new article. Should I do this (page creator) or is someone else meant to take care of this?-- Tano.Ca.garcia.s (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can do it as long as there is a consensus (which I guess there is since no one has objected).--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been working insane hours so if you would like to complete a merge to here I am for it. Otr500 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request
Talk:Louis Nye

message: There is a sentence in this section which speaks to Nye's longevity, but at this writing it is missing date and/or age information for it to make it's intended point. I thought to remove it until such info can be found. Decided to post here to alert someone (original editor perhaps) of the apparent need so the needed info could be added.THX1136 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Years section
Talk:Lucien Carr

message: "Whether Kammerer's attentions were frightening or flattering to Carr (or both) is now a matter of some debate."  Carr was twelve years old when they met, Kammerer was an adult. There's a reason the age of consent exists. 81.4.151.18 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distasteful language
Talk:George Macready

message: It is given in the IMDB as 1899, so I will change it to that, since no sourcing in the article says differently.--Silverscreen 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: Perhaps not worth including in the article, but I thought it was interesting that in Macready's 1944 film The Seventh Cross, they make a point of showing a "modern" painting, resembling a Picasso, that Macready's character has hanging in his apartment. Perhaps it was from Macready's personal collection, or his gallery? Doesn't appear to be any other reason for featuring it so prominently in the film. Lafong (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picasso [?] in Seventh Cross 

message: Born in Rhode Island but had a German accent and dueling scar?96.235.138.157 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent
Talk:Luis Adolfo Siles

message: I know about a conspiracy to assassinate him but I have not many clues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination 
Talk:Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy

message: I have moved the following passage from the article until proper sources for it can be cited:
Former Baywatch star and Calvin Klein underwear model Michael Bergin claims that Carolyn Bessette had an affair with him and became pregnant and had an abortion because of their affair prior to her marriage. Their affair was to run its course during her marriage to John, causing tension between John and Carolyn. There were rumors that Carolyn broke up with Michael to marry John, but still loved Michael, even after she married John, and that she was pregnant by John at the time of the plane crash. Other rumors, particular regarding her alleged drug use, were the subject of gossip. Lethiere 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors Removed

message: The Kennedys have always been known as a prominant catholic family, but the article says she was married in a baptist church to a kennedy.. was she a baptist? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptist or Catholic? 

message: I think a picture would be appropriate. 109.145.59.194 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: I removed the following- Her style of bridal gown is still emulated today. She was known for her minimalist style as well as her support for young designers. There are no sources for this. If someone can find sources for that statement then add it back in.--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced info. 

message: I've tagged this article for its tone and one overly detailed section (Wedding and marriage). The entire tone of this article is unencylopedic and sounds more like a People magazine article. The wedding section is just insane with details including a long description of Bessette's dress and even what was served at the reception dinner. Again, that's People magazine material and has no place in an encylopedia. As I'm on my mobile, I can't do a large amount of editing easily so if these issues aren't corrected in the next few weeks, I will do so myself. 104.56.62.1 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree entirely. But apparently Wiki doesn't like you removing copy that carries citations. Valetude (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to try this myself. Some citations lost, but I can't see that they're sacred. Valetude (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tone
Talk:Lyn Collins

message: Should her birth place be changed as per http://www.soulwalking.co.uk/Lyn%20Collins.html ? Starlemusique (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to her New York Times obituary and other sources, she was born in Dime Box, Texas, and I've changed it to that. Nicmart (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Maclyn McCarty

message: This article is largely a verbatim reproduction of:  added with this edit on 19 May 2008. While the source article is CC-licensed, the license requires this notice is to clearly attribute source. Furthermore, the celebratory tone of the obituary is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While the editing I just did is not WP:TNT, it actually incorporates what I had started as same. While it may resemble melting a three-flavor chocolate/strawberry/vanilla ice cream (the chocolate is what predominates), it no longer is a simple coredump of the above-cited work. Pi314m (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 
Talk:Type 96 light machine gun

message: Why would poor dimensional tolerances lead to jamming? Usually "poor tolerances" in machine work results in parts fitting LOOSER than they are supposed to. In engines and in guns, this usually results in a more reliable but less efficient and/or accurate machine. This is one of the reasons the Kalashinikov rifle is so legendarily reliable (besides basic design), and why hand-fitted "full race" M1911 pistols tend to be finicky about what type of ammo they will feed reliably but can drive a tack at 50yds, while other cheaper types with slides that "rattle" will feed just about anything and give only sufficient accuracy. Supposedly one of the main reasons that large American radial engines of WWII were so reliable and could run even when suffering from major battle damage is that were machined to far looser tolerances than most German or British engines (although I have to wonder how much of this is myth, and if there were looser tolerances it wasn't actually because radials are air cooled and need more tolerance for metal expansion, etc). AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Poor dimensional tolerances" and jamming 

message: Oh the wonders of the Wiki!  --84.189.95.128 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both reliable and unreliable
Talk:Type 94 Nambu pistol

message: I have deleted an unsourced paragraph from this article which claimed that the well-known problem with the sear bar "may have been intentional" - a claim I've never heard outside this article. If you re-add this material, please give one or more references for it. Of course, the whole article is unreferenced at the moment, but that's a separate problem ... Gavia immer 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the specific issue at hand is true or not, I don't know, but if one is serious about removing unsourced material, I would advice them to nominate the article for deletion as not a single word of it is, in any way, sourced.172.191.214.119 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed unsourced material about the design flaw
Talk:Type 97 sniper rifle

message: some idiot has written this article with no knowledge of firearms whatsoever. i.e claims that a long barrel slows the bullet down, and reduces stopping power.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.161.78 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:Type 97 heavy tank machine gun

message: As someone has helpfully pointed out, the Japanese Army "Type 97 machine gun" "is not to be confused with the Type 97 arming Japanese Navy fighters such as the A6M Zero", but for some reason the page for the Zero links to this page. There is no page for the Navy Type 97. The Japanese Navy and Army didn't use the same aircraft weapons at all; the "Type 97" just means both were adopted the same year. This describes a magazine fed Japanese infantry machine gun, while the Navy fighters used a belt-fed derivative of the Vickers machine gun in a fixed position. I'm also concerned that a number of other pages about Japanese navy aircraft link to this page when listing the flexible machine gun armament. This is an ARMY weapon, and the only Type 97 in Naval use was the fixed guns used in fighters. The Army Type 97 was never used in aircraft; Japanese army aircraft used the "Type 89" machine gun for flexible positions, and Navy aircraft used the "Type 92", which is a copy of the Lewis gun. But they all link to this page, so a lot of people are getting the wrong information from the links in these articles. I think someone should add a section on the Navy Type 97 to the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Stubby, but the bare essentials are in the new article. --Yaush (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are two Japanese "Type 97 machine guns". Why is only one discussed on Wikipedia?
Talk:Type 99 light machine gun

message: Can anyone explain why there's some stuff in References that doesn't belong? Thomas Yen (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Section in "References"

message: why the section of combat history is too short,please expand it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.190.218 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat History 

message: "larger and more powerful 7.7 mm cartridge which also had no rim, which improved cartridge handling"
So... is that "also had no rim" as in "and in addition, it had no rim" or "also had no rim" as in "like the 6.5 it was a rimless design"?
I ask, because the second part of that statement suggests that they improved cartridge handling by moving to a rimless cartridge. However, when I look at pictures of the 6.5, it appears to also be rimless. Both of these statements are confusing and require some clarity. 
Pinging  as one of the major authors. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement
Talk:Type 92 heavy machine gun

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move
Talk:David Nielsen

message: The reference to David Nielsen on the Robert_Snodgrass page is http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/leeds-united-we-ll-act-fast-over-snodgrass-1-2249866
San Ho Zay (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury to Robert Snodgrass 
Talk:Type 1 heavy machine gun

message: From Type 92 Heavy Machine Gun: "The Type 92 Heavy Machine Gun entered service in 1932 and was the standard Japanese heavy machine gun used during World War II by the Imperial Japanese Army and Collaborationist forces."
From this article: "The Type 1 Heavy Machine Gun was the standard heavy machine gun in the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second World War starting from 1941."
Er, the Type 1 and the Type 92 can't both have been "the" standard heavy machine gun of the Imperial Japanese Army during WW II, so which one is it? Drhoehl (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but agree. To this point, a War Department handbook on the Japanese Army issued, I believe, in October of 1944 doesn't even list the Type 1 Heavy Maching Gun, which suggests that it was, at this late date, unknown to Allied intelligence.209.244.31.37 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the photograph would appear to actually be an example of the 13.2mm Type 93 heavy machine gun, not the Type 1.209.244.31.35 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Standard Heavy Machine Gun"
Talk:Malik Joyeux

message: Does he have any native Tahitian blood?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tahitian? 
Talk:Marc Lawrence

message: A few sources list December 17, 1909 as his year of birth. But more reliable sources suggest it's February 17, 1910. The Latter is proven correct. The 1909 year is seen on his gravestone but it's incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.29.11 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth
Talk:Type 10 grenade discharger

message: I added a little bit on information on the origin of the nickname and the US mistakes resulting from it; I got my information from a history magazine caleed 'The War Machine', published in the early 80s. If anyone wants to edit this, please do so but put your reason/s on here. Andyana 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US troops and the 'knee mortar'
Talk:Margaretta Scott

message: This article does a disservice to the subject. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the highlights of her career and emphasize the body of work without listing it all. (my opinion). --Stormbay 21:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length and Content 
Talk:Margarita Nazarova (artist)

message: Hi IP. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which outlines how articles should be presented. The edits you're making raise several issues with regards to style:
*Russia shouldn't be linked
*Icons generally shouldn't be used in infoboxes
*Nationality shouldn't be included when it is apparent from birthplace
Additionally per the template documentation, certain parameters such as height are included only when relevant to notability, which is not the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style
Talk:Margherita Carosio

message: One hundred percent of our sources (that's all 2 of them) say she died on 10 January.  So do the French and German articles.  Yet we say she died on 8 January, which is supported by the Italian article.  One would think the Italians would know, so why do the other sources disagree?  
For now, we have to go with what our sources say: 10 January.  I'll change it, but I'd still like to know where 8 January came from.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death
Talk:David Pirie

message: I've edited the article to remove the full quote of the BFI article  because it was given undue weight WP:UNDUE WP:NOFULLTEXT. Works that weren't already included in the article have been added with relevant quotes from the BFI article. IndigoBeach (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BFI article 

message: I've reverted a change to the birth year, because no reliable source was given. The article already includes the birth year given in reliable sources. Kindly discuss here with a reliable source for verification before changing again. Thanks, IndigoBeach (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year
Talk:Friedrich Benjamin von Lütke

message: Hi, I removed the following sentence: 'but the misspelling of Litke's name as "Lutke" endures in the United States.' Since his name was spelled Lütke in his native German (and transliteraed Litke into Russian), naming the cape Lutke is not that much of a misspelling, is it? I hope people agree. -Yakikaki (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 25 December 2012
Talk:Mark Boyle (artist)

message: Needs more about how they came about as a family to work on this style of art and how they got their ideas too do it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.98.227 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would suggest that the redirect should go the other way -- from Mark Boyle to Boyle Family, with an accompanying shift of the content.  
1) it's clear that the article is about the entire group, not just him
2) it's clear that they exhibited as a collaborative group, and are identified as such in books and exhibitions
3) this would be in line with cataloging systems such as the Library of Congress' authority records, which uses the heading "Boyle Family (Group of artists)" Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: move the page and/or reverse the redirect?