lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:NEAR Shoemaker

message: the space craft was indeed cool, and i think that it should have not been shut down on eros. attempts should have been made to recover the craft and pilot it back to earth, or the space station, because the aliens could find it and then attack our planet and kill our population to harvest the earth of its remaining natural resources, before moving on to the next planet that advertises itself by leaving old probes in orbit. if everyone dies by aliens, i hope the boffins at NASA have it on their consciences that it is their fault, until their consciences are stopped by extensive mind probing.  194.72.50.157 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2005‎ (UTC)
*Hilarious. :-) --ScottyBoy900Q 04:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Space craft temperature - danger from aliens - funny? 

message: Hopiakuta 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[aerogel]] 

message: A section with a concise summary of the most important findings would be nice. -- 92.229.179.88 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings? 

message: * Was it communicating by high gain antenna during the descent ?
* Was there also a low gain antenna ?
* after impact how was the orientation on the surface measured ?
** (apparently it ended up resting on two of the 4 solar panels)
* How did NASA communicate after impact (which probably misaligned the HG antenna, and Eros rotating) ?
* Was the multispectral imager the camera used for the final images during descent ? (yes)
* What was the timeline after impact, eg to get the on-surface x-ray/gamma-ray readings ? (14 days?)
* why didn't NASA retrieve the rest of the final image ?
* where on Eros did it land (Eros rotates in 5.27 hrs)
- Rod57 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions to address
Talk:Constituency

message: As of March 2, 2005 the list of places with constituencies is incomplete. --Theo  (Talk) 10:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Places with constituencies

message: It's been over two years since the above proposal, and not much growth has happened with this article.  The usage of constituency as the population represented really does deserve its own article, and I can't think of any better place to put it than here.
I've gone ahead and made a bold edit, moving what there was of content to electoral district as well as creating a lot of new content there.  The list of "places with constituencies" is now at list of electoral districts by nation.  I feel like electoral district is a better place for that portion of the article for much of the same reasons as above, namely:
* Electoral district unambiguously refers to the area.
* Electoral district is the academic term used in political science literature.
* People who use the term constituency to refer to districts understand what electoral district means; the converse isn't true since many understand constituency to refer to a group of people.
* Both constituency (as people) and electoral district are deserving of articles, and it would be awkward to place them both here or under some disambig namespace like constituency (people).
* Wikipedia policy on National Varieties of English suggests:Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. For example, use alternative route (or even other route) rather than alternate route, since alternate may mean only "alternating" to a British English speaker.
I've commented out the interwiki links due to the split, as some may refer to people and some may refer to districts.  Please add them back in (either here or at electoral district) once confirmed.  Apologies in advance if I've stepped on any toes. Scott Ritchie (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold controversial redefinition of article 

message: There should be a merger, or at least importation of content, from this section of the constituent article: Constituent_(politics)#Inhabitants_of_constituencies Scott Ritchie (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More text from another article
Talk:Intersex/Archive 1

message: I'm not pretending to offend anyone. It's just a curiosity I believe many who doesn't know very much about this (as me) share. Don't even know if it corresponds to this ?phenomenom? or to another.
Can a human produce both sperm and ovulus? And if so, could him/her fecund him/herself? In a natural way or artificially...--euyyn 22:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the exact medical data, but I know a person who was raised as a man, married and fathered 3 or 4 children, all the while feeling not quite male, and actually mensturating. (S/he did transition, btw, later to a female gender role.) Anyway, doctors said that at least if he had recieved female hormones it may have been possible that he could have gotten pregnant. But then, since sperm production under female hormones tends to decrease or stop, "naturally" she could most likely not gotten herself pregnant. -- AlexR 13:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curiosity...
Talk:Saint John's Co-Cathedral

message: The article says 1572-1577 (unsourced as far as I can tell) but I found this article  which says the latter dates. Which is right? BhamBoi (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lonely Planet agrees with the linked article I linked. . Thinking about changing it with these new sources. ANOTHER source agree with the -1578 timeframe. ; of the first results, all the ones with dates supported the 1573-1578 time instead of the one in the article. I'm fixing it now. BhamBoi (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1572-1577 or 1573-1578?
Talk:Unix time

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :1234567890. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 24#1234567890 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It got relisted several times, and ended up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31#1234567890, and finally got closed as "make it a disambiguation page, because there's no consensus". Guy Harris (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1234567890" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello all! 
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! 
Remagoxer (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive 

message: Extracted from article:
Unix time is currently defined as the number of seconds which have passed since 00:00:00UTC on Thursday, 1 January 1970, which is referred to as the Unix epoch. Unix time is typically encoded as a signed integer.[1]
[1] refers to "single-unix-spec-4.16"
 ↑↑ could someone refine here above and here below statement? ref. [1] - does not stipulate that Unix time is typically encoded as a signed integer. Instead it emphasizes: If the year is <1970 or the value is negative, the relationship is undefined. ...   ↓↓
The Unix time  is exactly midnight UTC on 1 January 1970, with Unix time incrementing by 1 for every non-leap second after this.
Daniel exb (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Single UNIX Specifcation does not, as far as I can tell, require that the time be epresented as a signed integer, but it does allow it and, in practice, most if not all UN*Xes have  as a signed type.  I've moved the reference after the first of the sentences you quoted, so it only applies to the definition of Unix time, not to the claim that it's typically encoded as a signed integer. Guy Harris (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a clarification
Talk:Teletraffic engineering

message: Well, I think IP Traffic Engineering needs to be separate from Teletraffic Engineering, as the issues and mechanisms are different.
:If we get the material, yes. Unfortunately Teletraffic engineering in broadband networks was almost entirely stolen material. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 

message: Teletraffic engineering is the application of traffic engineering theory to telecommunications.
*Traffic engineering theory as in Traffic engineering (transportation)? --Abdull (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots
Talk:Palmitos Park

message: I have just linked the word "colibri" to the article "Hummingbird".  I assume that because the original writer of this article was translating from the Dutch that, similarly as in the Danish word "kolibri", we are talking about hummingbirds here.  I did not change the text in the article from "colibri" to "hummingbird" as maybe my assumption was incorrect.  I did a google search and uncovered no reference to "colibri" as a bird, and tried a dictionary search on "colibri" which is not a recorgnized English language word.  If indeed we are talking about hummingbirds then I would suggest that the word "hummingbird" be also used in the text as most English language readers would be familiar with this word.  What do you say? Sfdan 11:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, correct, I knew the English equivalent was 'hummingbird', but somehow I mixed the Dutch up anyway. I'll change the word in the text as well if no one has done so yet. Mange tak! Flyingbird 20:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colibri?
Talk:Conformism

message: Why are some societies, or national populations at least, seen as more conformist than others?  As a Brit my perception of the US is that it is a more conformist society than mine, and I wonder how this is done or whether other people think it is true.  Beyond US the most conformist society is often said to be the Japanese.  I wonder if this is changing with the growth of international youth culture and such-like.
NW 2/3/05
:I too would like to know more about trends. My own opinion is that more educated people would be less conformist because more likely to use their own discrimination; I see the Americans as being very comfortable materially, and as a result a bit casual about their own education and that of their children, with the result that they have become easily led and un-inquisitive. Only a guess, mind you, but I get to see them first hand. Haiduc 02:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: This merge would seem consistent with the parallel article Nonconformism. haz (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Conformist]] 

message: Since I have the oppositive personality to the conformists and I like to explore what call the dark, meaning the unknown; I do excentric things and things that challenge the way people think; I was wondering what this type of person is called.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.234.213 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite of conformism 

message: Conformity is a developed article, unlike this one which is completely unreferenced. "Conformity" and "Conformism" are synonyms: there is no justification for two articles. I will be bold and replace this article with a redirect. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace with redirect to [[Conformity]]
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Instantnood

message: Please note that the RfC is a place to discuss behaviour, not whether or not we agree with Instantnood's underlying points. This is not a dispute over whether he is entitled to espouse his view, this is more of a request that he calms down in his enthusiasm over how he presents his view so he is not being disruptive in so doing. Please keep comments restricted to the point in hand, jguk 13:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His behaviour was no problem. It is more like the problems of some of the people who opposed without reading his points and the conventions. Some people are more disruptive in opposing a point. - Privacy 14:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: * revert warring is inherently disruptive and he's been the instigator of that.  Also, when concensus has been reached (such as "Hong Kong does not have a capitol city.") then to continue placing it in articles, and to continue discussing it as if there is no concensus - that is disruptive.  SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: Why did Instantnood close and archive the RfC? They are supposed to be open for the longer of 14 days or 3 days after the last new editors comments.  If he wants it closed, fine, it's fairly dead as he's brought factual disputes here, but I'll note that it's closed early. SchmuckyTheCat 17:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anyone who has to close pages like this, the last person will the person in question himself.--Huaiwei 17:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed?
Talk:Rex Allen

message: Either:
A. When he was 78
B. Two weeks before he turned 79
Since statement B encapsulates A, but A does not contain the information in B, it would be better to write that he died two weeks before he turned 79, as it was quite close to that. Just my thoughts. Better than constantly re-editing the page. ButterCashier (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed statement as trivia.  - FlightTime (open channel) 18:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Whether he was 1 or 100 days from his next birthday is irrelevant. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did he die?
Talk:Alkaline fuel cell

message: Can someone find a source the says NASA wants to switch from AFC to PEMFC? AFC are great in space: there very efficient, producing little heat and in space its not hard to supply them with pure fuel and oxidizers. --BerserkerBen 13:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I've created a boilerplate of fuel cell related articles to give some sense of coherence of topic to the many fuel cell and hydrogen economy related articles. The boilerplate code is . Dr. Eclectic talk 20:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel cell articles boilerplate 

message: I have added numerous comments in the page's code indicating sections that need proper sourcing. I don't have my sources handy, so please feel free to jump in and source the material. Thopper 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Polynomially reflexive space

message: Please could you clarify the definition? It seems to me that it says that a single polynomial can be reflexive, which doesn't make sense. If it's talking about a set of polynomials, please identify it explicitly (what is the set of "polynomials on X"?). Lupin 13:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear definition
Talk:Larva

message: Oh whatever dora
This page on larvae is very poor.  It needs major work.  I mean, where the hell was the mention of fish?  The early life stage of most fish species are considered to be larvae, and this is very important.  I think this page should be "Larvae", not "Larva".  I don't like some obscure Roman mythology page claiming "Larvae".  Codman 09:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like fish need to be added to this page, along with a "main article" link to the appropriate section of the Ichthyoplankton page – Down time (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the fish? 

message: oooohhhhhhhhhh whos getting married.
Theres a very interesting article in Scientific American's November-December 2007 issue on page 509 by Donald I. Williamson and Sonya E. Vickers regarding Larvae and their evolution, with some rather interesting theories regarding its origin as a form of interspecies hybridisation. It makes a pretty good case, perhaps something regarding this should be added to the article. I'd add it, but such requires both discussion and better writing skills than I posess. --121.44.88.16 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition proposal 

message: In paragraph 1, "indirect development" is mentioned, but it is not defined. I want it to be defined, or linked to another page that defines it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.22.5 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "indirect development" 

message: I would like to see a section on grubs as there is no dedicated page. in fact a section on grubs,maggots and caterpillars would be nice. I am aware that the 3 terms are often used interchangabley in regards to the various larvae of moths,ants,bees,beetles,and flies but personaly i distinguish between them based on appearences such as locomotion and the body structures that hint at it's adult form.Bloodkith (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  where's the grubs 

message: I don't get the picture. I can't see any wriggly things. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldenrod Gall Fly larva picture. 

message: I removed the etymology ("larva" means "ghost" in Latin). Linnaeus originally used "larva" in the sense of "mask", as the larval form conceals the adult form. This is kind of obscure and is of more interest to etymologists than entomologists :) Moogsi (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology
Talk:Jeffrey Skilling

message: Given as 2019 at one point and 2017 in another? Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The early date was based on assumption that he would be paroled (15% reduction) but this has not happened yet by some reason. Ruslik_Zero 20:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: He's out of prison now. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-enron-ceo-jeffrey-skilling-released-from-prison/ NotJim99 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: The name and occupation of Tom Skilling, the subject's brother, is mentioned twice, first in the Early Life section and again in the Personal Life section. I think one reference should be removed, unless additional relevant information is added to the second reference. Matuko (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , the article isn't protected, you're free to make those changes yourself. Boldness is encouraged! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement, PMC! Edit published. Matuko (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Skilling mentioned twice
Talk:Boys Anti-tank Rifle

message: Used to read
'A bipod mounted anti tank rifle, succeded by the american Bazooka and the PIAT shaped charge. In appearance it looked like a bren gun - a padded rifle stock and pistol grip, an over-breach magazine, and a five foot long barrel with a single shot bolt action breech, firing .55 inch calibre rounds. Named after General Boys, it was effective against early tanks, especially when used to smash the tank tracks, but as armour thickened in the later WW2 tanks it became less effective.'
GraemeLeggett 14:19, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Talk:National question

message: The National Question (and note the article does need to have 'The' at the start) is a general term used for questions relating to nationalities, nationalism, and nations. Often it is used prefixed with a specific case, such as The Algerian National Question, which most often relate to colonies or semi-colonies (formally independent but with large sections of the economy or land owned by former colonist). This article seems to be on the The Quebec National Question rather than on The National Question as a whole.
-----------------------------  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.163.122 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While the dichotomist approach is a valid one in regard the the national question, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as a sort of "spectrum". What I mean is that you could better split people in these groups with a lot of fluidity around the edges: 
- At both ends you have the "pur et dur", those that support complete independence on the sovereignist side and lack of any special status or deal on the federalist side.
- going toward the middle you have those looking for "arrangements", sovereignty-association on the sovereignist side, renewed federalism on the federalist side
- Finally at the center you have the so-called "soft vote", these are those who would usualy consider themselves quebecois first but whose exact opinion might change depending on various circumstances.
The reason why I feel this better reflect the question is that it help explain the position of some groups such as the Action Democratique du Quebec which was on the YES side during the 1995 referendum but as since pronounced itself for a moratorium on future one.--Marc pasquin 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Chatted on this with User:Pharos via talk pages for a bit.  It seems that, according to the sources, the only idea of a unified "national question" is from Marxism and the National Question.  As such, this article should simply be merged with that article.  Additionally, it's grossly misleading to call the list "Particular cases of this issue around the world" - many of these long pre-date Stalin's article.  They're just entirely different controversies whose only distinction happens to be they include "question" in the title - I don't think Jewish question has really anything to do with Roman question.
As such, I'd prefer that this article be replaced with a strange disambiguation page - just have the "particular cases" list be referred to, and have a hatnote to Marxism and the National Question.  No article, just a list.  Any objections? SnowFire (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this article 
Talk:Mitel

message: The history section has over the years become a bit of hot mess. Things have been added out of order and in different areas. I think what probably makes sense is to break it up chronologically as an editor did with the last section. I'm going to make an attempt at that today. - Dyork (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *  - I have re-ordered the text into what hopefully flows a bit better. - Dyork (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Needs Restructuring
Talk:Bloomberg L.P.

message: Is Bloombergs website is tech pros index? [[ http://bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=654512&privcapId=824942 | Sample]]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.148.141 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Bloomberg's tech pros index has nothing to do with Bloomberg Aptitude Test.--FeralOink (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Merge Bloomberg Aptitude Test: Content to include 

message: The redirect Bloomberg Intelligence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Bloomberg Intelligence]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Michael Eisner

message: Hello all! 
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive