lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Army of the Potomac

message: Hello, and thanks for the interest in the infobox.  I want to get some discussion going as to whether we should put Grant in the infobox as a "notable commander".  The reason I originally included him was because he was de facto commander in 1864-1865, whether or not Meade still held the formal title.  It seems like splitting hairs to exclude him on a technicality, and it reduces the utility of this encyclopedia.  Maybe we could include him with an asterisk? Haber 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although some people inaccurately credit Grant with command of the army, there is no reason for an encyclopedia to cater to this misinformation. Grant's relationship to Meade is covered in the text of the article and would require a footnote or some explanation in the infobox if his name were included, which I do not recommend. Hal Jespersen 14:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the quick reply.  My concern is that people who don't know a lot about the subject, and just read this article, might walk away with the impression that Meade was calling the shots in 1864-65.  I also just made a change to the body of the article to include this information.  The article is quite short anyway, and I think the whole Meade/Grant issue is probably one of the most interesting things about the Army of the Potomac.  We have a good opportunity here to clear up any confusion caused by Lincoln's unusual promotion system. Haber 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the reasons I don't use these info boxes (but insist that they are correct when they are used) is that they cater to people who are too lazy to read an article. Grant was never a commander of the Army of the Potomac. Period. The Army has no concept of a "de facto commander" and introducing that concept is confusing and inconsistent. Should we list Abraham Lincoln as a de facto commander when he ordered McClellan to launch his Peninsula campaign? Should we list Grant as "de facto commander" of the Army of the James? There are many cases in military history when a senior commander provides detailed supervision of a subordinate, but that senior commander is never listed as the "commander" of that unit. Hal Jespersen 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your most recent edit.  Done.  Haber 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant

message: It says that the last reunion of the veterans' organisation was in 1929. But in the article on that organisation, it says it last met in 1927. Which is correct?Paulturtle (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last reunion
Talk:KQMY (FM)

message: The FCC issued the license for this station on March 14, 2008. - Dravecky (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: redirect of klzy-lp to kqmy based on the fact it help the call sign until 2006 in basic is an illegal change. This is redirecting on legitimate business legally FCC licensed as KLZY-LP to be directed to KQMY for potential minitart gain. References clearly show KQMY released call sing KLZY in 2006! Kc0uuf (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensed
Talk:ZBrush

message: It would be nice to read some history on how zBrush came about. I seem to remember a program made by the makers of Painter that did the same thing, but I am not sure if this is the same program or not.
--64.220.182.57 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Is there a big difference between a "pixol" map and a heightmap? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think yes, heightmap is two dimensional information about third dimension, and pixol is about energy in space --90.141.4.162 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "energy"?  How far did you have to dig to pull that out of your ass?  Heighmap is an image that represents elevations.  A "Pixol" Is their idea of having a unit with 3d data.  It is closer if not the same (with a different implementation) as a voxel.
* A pixol is a pixel that also has depth and face direction (normal) data. Marcus civis (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  heightmap? 

message: A pixel does not contain X and Y data, these are implied. Usually it contains RGB and optionally Alpha. In a voxel, X, Y and Z are implied.
Now what is the Pixol data structure. And how can a grid based structure (that is what it reads like) be resolution independent? Something like a mipmap structure? Just speculating, but this could use some explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.245.44.183 (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pixel 

message: It is used by companies ranging from ILM to Electronic Arts
Is there an implied sequence here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.53.153 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  range? 
Talk:Lincoln High School (South Dakota)

message: Former Statesman editor here. The article described it as a monthly newsletter, but that to me implies a short official publication of the administration. It is rather a 20-page student-produced newspaper, so I changed the article to reflect that. --Mwillia9 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statesman 
Talk:Platoon Leaders Class

message: This reads like it was pulled straight off a government/military website. Please re-write this, keeping in mind the audience. Information published on a military website or the like is aimed at recruits, at members of the military who may be interested in enrolling in the Leaders Class. Information on Wikipedia, by contrast, is aimed at anybody interested in learning about it, not necessarily towards potential enrollment, but for research or just pure interest in how the military works. This should not be an advertisement or an enrollment guide. LordAmeth 08:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: Being a Naval Academy Midshipman I don't know for sure but I believe PLC is nicknamed "Bulldog," correct? --70.251.106.187 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bulldog" 

message: The About.com page calls this Platoon Leaders Course, not "Class." Languagehat (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; I just checked the official Marine site and it has "Class." Languagehat (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong name?
Talk:United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve

message: Would it be appropriate to mention the un-official WW2/Korean era Female Marines Nickname? "BAMS" for Broad Assed Marines. Ah, the joy of a dad and uncles who were Marines! :-)
--Purpleslog 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname? 

message: The article is titled United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. But the information extends to the general history of women in the Marine Corps. I think the title should change, but I'm not sure what should be the new title. Maybe "Women in the U.S. Marine Corps"? Maurreen (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The general information, especially after 1946, makes me think the article should be split, with some WWII material staying and the rest moving to Women in the United States Marine Corps. There is already an article entitled Women in the United States Navy, though it is poorly formatted. In the same vein, articles could be written about Women in the United States Coast Guard, Women in the United States Air Force and Women in the United States Army. There is no such article written (yet) for the US Army or Air Force. These articles could pick up where SPARS, Women Airforce Service Pilots, Women's Army Corps and Women in the Air Force (WAF) leave off. Another needed article is Women in the United States military. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did consider splittting it, but both articles would be pretty small, just a few paragraphs. Maurreen (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope and title? 

message: Hi , thanks for checking my q-marked edit. I understand wording of direct quotes should not be altered. Actually, by coincidence, yesterday I undid an edit on another article where a well-meaning editor had changed "bloody" to "very" in a direct quote:)
Just want you to know that I am very cautious and did indeed check the Stremlow source here and the 'as' was in Roosevelt's quote on page 40 as indicated.
I also checked other sources to confirm and searches gave me this and this and this. I'm happy to leave this to you. Kind regards, JennyOz (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your gracious note, JennyOz. I only removed it since your edit summary seemed to indicate you were not sure. I appreciate your checking the sources, and it turns out you were right! I've undone my edit.  – Corinne (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . I sometimes add a question mark in my edit summaries as I am anything but bold and hope primary editor/s will double check. In this case I thought that maybe a different edition of Stremlow's work may have omitted the word.  All is good. This article was a delight to read - special thanks to  and yourself. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt quote
Talk:Arkansas toothpick

message: I think this article should be merged because an Arkansas Toothpick was an early name for a bowie knife.  The first was believed to have been made in Arkansas and the natives of the state were thought to be so tough that they picked their teeth with knives of that size.  After the movie, the "Iron Mistress", it began to mean a large dagger with a needle point blade, very unrealistic.  Some modern Arkansas makers apply the name to more sensible sized knives.  --Saucycountrygirl (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Bowie knife]]?

message: A while ago, I read this article, and I remember it saying that this weapon was not for throwing, now it says it is.
208.40.180.2 
(talk) 14:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual change 

message: My research indicates that the term Arkansas Toothpick probably arose in the civil war time frame to refer to the large knives, also known as Bowie Knives that were carried by Arkansas Soldiers. I do not think that "Toothpick" is a distinct and separate design from the Bowie Knife.Aleutian06 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the Articles 

message: If I am reading this correctly, these implements typically have a blade 30 to 50 centimeters in length.  That isn't a "knife" any more.  It's a sword.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much.  They used it as a dueling weapon back in the day.  Twenty inches would have been an unusually long one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  up to 20" blade?  really?
Talk:Description de l'Égypte

message: The unreferenced assertion is that Description de l'Egypte is much less influential than usually thought, and that kind of claim needs a reference. Particularly in light of the comments of other encyclopedias, such as Britannica, which goes as far as to say (emphasis mine): "Egyptology began when the scholars accompanying Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Egypt (1798–1801) published Description de l'Égypte (1809–28), which made large quantities of source material about ancient Egypt available to Europeans." 
Perhaps this section needs a more balanced reassessment? Brando130 (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence section needs reference and improvement 

message: — Assignment last updated by Chrisad88 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 311_History of Ancient Egypt
Talk:Risdon Prison Complex

message: First time wiki user here, I was recently on holiday and snapped a pic of this prison while driving past just randomly, I was bored and wiki'd about it for more info and noticed the picture I took is from almost the exact same spot as the one used in the article, should the image be changed to the one I took that is current (not even a week old) or leave it as the in construction one?
Nevermoron 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Geniac 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Does anyone think it would be a good idea to state where the HM comes from in the article name? being a local, I've never heard it being called HM risdon Prison but rather just Risdon Prison. Cheers Wiki ian 07:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: HM
Talk:Fourteenth United States Army

message: The list of units associated with the 14th Army in Fortitude South is incorrect and incorporates 'ghost' divisions that were used for other deceptive operations in WWII.
At the start of Fortitude North the Order of Battle for the 14th Army was:
14th Army (HQ: Little Waltham , Cmdr: General Lucas(1))
*Thirty Third Corps (HQ: Bury St Edmonds)
**11th (US) Infantry Div (Bury St Edmonds)
**48th (US) Infantry Div (Woodbridge)
**25th (US) Armoured Div (East Dereham)
*Thirty Seventh Corps (HQ: Chelmsford)
**17th (US) Infantry Div (Hatfield & Peverel)
**59th (US) Infantry Div (Ipswich)
The 9th & 21st Airborne Divisions were attached to FUSAG HQ.
This order of battle can be found in several books on WWII deception including Roger Heskeths official account of Operation Fortitude (Fortitude: The D-Day Deception Campaign). Thaddeus Holt's 'The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War' has a complete list of deceptive units including several that were proposed for Fortitude but not actually used.Graham1973 (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unit List is incorrect
Talk:Sixth Army (United States)

message: Did MacArthur not command the 6th Army during ww2? He fought with then on New Gunia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MacArthur's land forces in New Guinea included Australians and the US Marines, 6th Army and 8thArmy. (My father was an infantryman in the 6th Army in the New Guinea and Luzon campaigns.) Naaman Brown (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Sixth Army took part in the Invasion of Lingayen Gulf on 9 January 1945 alongside I and XIV Corps"
Alongside? Were not I and XIV Corps constituent parts of Sixth Army? Is it just poor wording or am I missing something?
172.191.214.23 (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine troubles 

message: Do the insignia stand for anything or were they just chosen at random? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of their insignia 

message: The List of Commanders for the time starting in 2007 is missing. WAG57 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactivation in 2007
Talk:Rossport Five

message: Removed some refernces in relation to Shell to Sea and the Protest due to there vague nature and possible POV on the subject
:Yes they are vague but that is not the same as pov. I will label as appropriate. Djegan 09:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Washington State Route 26

message: Wouldn't State Route 26 (Washington) be better?
After all from what i can understand the road is
SR26 with no Washington in the name of the road.
That fact it's a road in Washington isn't
in the roads name?
ShakespeareFan00 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the jungle. --SPUI (T - C) 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um you're a little late to the party. But no it wouldn't to answer your question. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't listen to Johnny - he's a bit deluded. --SPUI (T - C) 00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title? 

message: Article expanded, meets B-Class audit set by  at WT:USRD. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment
Talk:2nd Ranger Battalion

message: I recognize a couple of the names from my time in the service. Instead of removing them why don't we/I do a little research first. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: if you're referring to the list of "Notable 2nd Battalion alumni", you would need to add a link to a WP bio page (if they have one) or provide sourcing to show they are notable, (and just mentioned in passing in some article or website). - wolf 20:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Former 2nd BN Rangers

message: Made some edits today and had a bit of trouble w/ this.  Based on 3 sources here, 75thRRA site, LeadTheWay fund, and USASOC's Memorial Wall.  75th RRA site's casualty list for 2bn hasn't been updated since ~2012.  But it does list several rangers who aren't on some of the other lists.  Mainly, Devin K Peguero, Blake W. Samodell, George V. Libby, Richard Kemp, and Jared Hagemann.  Peguero, Samodell, and Kemp died during training accidents (though I can find very little on Kemp).  Libby died during a non-combat related MVA in Afghanistan.  Hagemann allegedly committed suicide.  LeadTheWay's list is unique because they include former Rangers (and I think their definition includes only those who served in a Ranger unit, not just Ranger-qualified); I noticed this because I spotted Joshua Wheeler's name there--when he died he was in Delta but he had spent 7 years in 2/75.   It's also odd because LeadTheWay doesn't include Peguero, Samodell, or Kemp though it does include other Rangers who were killed in training accidents.  There's also the problem of what if a guy was in 1st for 4 years, transferred to 3rd, then died while in 3rd?  Is he counted in 1st?  in 3rd?  I don't know and  I think it's probably overthinking things (and none of the 2nd batt guys had that issue)
Anyway, the number I listed (25 killed, 20 in combat) is based a lot off of the LeadTheWay list (which had 20 guys listed as from 2nd batt), plus 5 guys who were on the 75th RRA site (as listed above). Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties during GWoT
Talk:135th Aviation Regiment (United States)

message: These is a stupid rename of 2-135th GSAB. Create a separate 135th aviation regiment but the 2-135th should have been kept. The 2-135th gsab has much historical importance in the GWOT and stood just fine on its own. Leave it to some wiki idiot to screw the pooch. 172.56.31.136 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What damn Idiot/s did away with the 2-135th GSAB 
Talk:519th Military Intelligence Battalion (United States)

message: CPT Wood as A Company Commander.
This is inacurate.  CPT Wood was not the company commander for A Company.  Please review your sources.  There was another CPT in charge of the company for the entire OIF I deployment.
She held a completely different position in the company.
user:jerry.mills
:This may be true, but we have to go with what our references state.  And this is what the references state.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Carolyn Wood's role

message: I reverted these unexplained edits.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert unexplained edit 
Talk:741st Tank Battalion (United States)

message: G'day, I came across this article while scanning the list at WP:GAN. I only had a quick look but it looks quite good. I have updated its assessment from stub to B class, as I believe that it meets the B class criteria. One suggestion I have is to include mention of the unit's brief existence post war (1949 to 1952) in the "Post war" section. Currently it is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body of the prose, but the lead shouldn't really contain information that isn't in the main section of the article. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Contributor 70.184.116.25 changed equipment from M5 Stuart to M3 Stuart. That is incorrect and I have reverted the text. By the time 741st deployed to Europe in late 1943, production of Stuarts had rolled over to M5/M5A1 from M3 variants. TO&E 17-25, dated 15 Sep 1943, which controlled the 741st Tk Bn, also specified the M5A1. There were likely some substitutions, especially among units that had already deployed in the Mediterranean Theater, but  M3 production ended in October 1943. By D-Day, and through replacement of damaged tanks thereafter, the pipeline would have effectively eliminated any earlier M3 holdouts in the ETO. For a thorough treatment, see Zaloga, referenced in 741st Tk Bn main article, pp 22-23 and 32-33. See also Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, British and American Tanks of World War II: The complete illustrated history of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945, New York: Arco Publishing Co., 1969, p. 93.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilhartz (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  M3 vs. M5
File talk:Phylogeny of genus Psittacula based on molecular evidence (2006).jpg

message: Is this based on Groombridge et al. ? Shyamal 03:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops , i see the citation in the article en:psittacula... Shyamal 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation please
Talk:Random dot stereogram

message: The Random Dot Stereogram is a concept much more important than Autostereogram. It has to do with science, not just entertainment. The Autostereogram page is too long to explain a simple concept. And it has too many images only for entertainment. It is ok for an entertainment page. That is why I think the Random Dot Stereogram should be kept in its own page. For the memory of Dr. Bela Julesz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otuyama (talk • contribs) .
:A random dot stereogram is a kind of autostereogram, so it doesn't make sense to say it's "much more important". What do you mean by "an entertainment page"? I think Autostereogram explains the concept much better than this article. —Keenan Pepper 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think is more important than what? Be specific. We're talking about whether these concepts would better presented as one article or two. I don't understand how your comments are pertinent to that question. Also, what kind of word is sobreposition? It appears in this article, so I doubt it's a typo, but I've never seen it before and it's not in the OED. Is it from another language or something? —Keenan Pepper 20:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and let me apologize for my error: a two-image random dot stereogram as described in this article is not a kind of autostereogram, because autosterograms are single images. That's a better argument for not merging the articles than anything you've said. —Keenan Pepper 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm very confused. Are you talking about the concepts or the articles? What exactly do you think an autostereogram is? —Keenan Pepper 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

message: *I wish the contributor of the stereograms hadn't just made matching blobs. A little stick man or a heart might be better. Anthony717 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do check out Autostereogram. Hopefully you'll find better examples there. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Better cut out please