lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Wall Street bombing

message: The list of List of terrorist incidents claims 40 people were killed in this attack, this article says 33. --Merbabu 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of casualties 

message: * The Wall Street Bombing
--NightMonkey 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruned dead link 

message: This statement seems to be quite false.  Did the author of this line not hear of the Weathermen?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Change "the era" to "this era".  Also requested citation. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Galleanist bomb attacks in the U.S. continued for another 12 full years, culminating with the attempted assassination of Webster Thayer in September 1932.  See Paul Avrich, Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background, Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 213.  Don01 comment added by talk) 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the era of political bombings in America finally ended in 1932." 

message: What note? This is missing a first reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafflesia (talk • contribs) 
:Indeed so. I have added a  to draw attention to the omission. – ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The note was analyzed and its language structure found similar to other 'bomb' leaflets" 

message: Resolve:
The bomb caused more than $2 million in property damage ($23,500,000 with inflation[6]) and destroyed most of the interior spaces of the Morgan building.[7]
With:
Investigators were puzzled by the number of innocent people killed and the lack of a specific target, other than buildings that suffered relatively superficial, non-structural damage. 
71.139.160.117 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting info 

message: I'd expect to read (in the intro maybe even) the bombing being on the street (+ address?), not in/against a  building. DePiep (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: some of the language in this article seems like it is narrative and intended to impart to the reader an opinion, rather than simply reporting on the actions. for instance, the paragraph where the anarchists are called "ruthless" seems a bit over blown, and i checked the reference and couldn't find that characterization, but even if it were there, i don't think it is the job of wikipedia to declare whether these actions should be considered ruthless. commie (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality
Talk:Nathan Myhrvold

message: Certainly the "patent troll" accusation of Intellectual Ventures deserves inclusion, with RS giving context etc. But it seems excessive to include the accusation "patent troll" twice under the heading of the company and a third time in a section called Controversy. Myhrvold's response to that criticism e.g. in The Guardian also should be in the article. 
Also the "Controversy" section, which discusses only Intellectual Ventures, should simply be merged into the Intellectual Ventures section. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP treatment of "patent troll" accusation needs improvement
Talk:Steve Kagan

message: Redirect per AfD. Duja 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose -- while there's no need to request a move for uncontroversial moves such as correcting spelling, Steve Kagen is currently a redirect page to Wisconsin 8th congressional district election, 2006, per proposed WP:C&E.  It's best to make this a redirect as well (or just delete it), which I'll do shortly. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Sailor's valentine

message: I don't know anything about these "Sailor's Valentine" boxes, but the contention in the article that sailors couldn't have carved them during long voyages is frankly ridiculous in addition to being unattributed. I suppose the wiki editor who contributed that thinks scrimshaw is some sort of elabourate hoax? Sailors in pre-modern times had plenty of free time on their long voyages, working in shifts so that stations didn't go unmanned while everyone slept, and voyages were often characterised by long periods of relatively calm seas in between storms and choppy waters; also, sailors with their "sea legs" were accustomed to compensating for the pitch and roll of the deck while the ship was under sail. (Not logged in, not at home --Jackabug) 75.26.150.223 (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

message: In response to Jackabug's comments, I went through the page and tried to clarify the definition of a sailors' valentine. I would like to point out that Sailors' Valentines are not carved, but constructed. Scrimshaw art was often featured in the center of a sailor valentine's design, and I believe this is why the page refers the user to scrimshaw. 
It has been concluded by John Fondas in his Book Sailors' Valentines, that the primary source for Sailors' Valentines was The Old Curiosity Shop, located in Barbados, and a popular place in the 1800s for sailors to purchase souvenirs. John's research tells of a sailors' valentine reconstruction, where the reconstructing artist found bits of a barbados newspaper inside.
Much thanks, Twainsgrrl (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Jackabug 

message: www.sailorsvalentineart.com
(7gran (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new web site for sailors valentines
Talk:Subsidy Password

message: The link at the bottom of the page advertising free subsidy passwords appears to be a scam.
The editors should consider removing it.
jb
152.131.10.3 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link at bottom of page 

message: Yes  Julian hengky (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iphone6s
Talk:Teres major muscle

message: I came here looking for something more in depth. I thought this muscle had profound implications in human evolution. It allows us to throw our shoulders back and walk upright. With the teres major, our knuckles no longer grazed the ground, unlike our closest animal cousins. Is this assumption correct?75.205.191.206 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution

message: I believe that the lower supbscapular nerve off of the brachial plexus has nerve roots C5 and C6.  Please refer to Moore's Clinical Anatomy Second Edition.  Table 7.4.
Thank you.
There are a number of web sites that call the root innervation as C6 and C7. Pollira (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1999/2000 United States network television schedule

message: It looks like the correct title of this article should have been for 1999-2000.  Is that correct?  — EncMstr 03:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name?

message: Law & Order: SVU aired in 1999 9 episodes on Monday and aired in 2000 the rest of Season 1 Friday 10 p.m., but I don't know what replaced Law & Order: SVU on Monday. Affe 37,5 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Talk:André Giroux (painter)

message: at 12 minutes into this film, GET YOUR MAN. Clara Bow 1927 Silent Film, there is a (supposed) wax museum display depicting "the murder of Andre Giroux".  Is it the same person? should this article mention it? I tried googling, didn't find. 71.190.240.122 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  was his death a murder? 
Talk:Airco DH.9

message: As the DH9 and DH9A are really different aircraft is it worth splitting this article once there is enough info?  As a start I have added separate specifications for the DH9.  Nigel Ish 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be a good idea. The book I had treated them in the same article, and so I didn't have enough information to separate them. If you feel you can though, please do! --Falcorian (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DH9 - DH9A 

message: Article mentions 1920 as the last combat use. Which can not be true since Greeks have deployed them against Turks during the Turkish War of Independence and one was captured by Turks and then used against the Greeks. Two more were captured intact in Izmir later. This was 1922.
: It actually mentions 1920 as the last combat use BY THE RAF. Note that it also talks about South African combat use in 1922 and Polish use in the Polish-Soviet War, and there may have also been combat use by other users (for example the Soviets).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I showed, with multiple references, that it was used in combat as late 1922. Maybe should not have said very last use, but need to check on that as the months for other engagements were not mentioned. Nothing in the statement was wrong. Are you under the impression that every sentence in a paragraph needs to end with a reference? Thank you for your attention.Murat (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every statement should be backed by a cite - to reliable sources (and it isn't clear if either of the two sources are reliable - one of one appears to be some sort of flyer advertising a book and the parts of the other that are legible don't back up what is cited to it. You cannot rely on sources earlier in a paragraph for verification.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vecihi Hurkus is a very well know pilot, and his exploits are well documented. I did not bother to include all. In fact, his name given to a new plane that is in development now. One of the references you are referring to is actually from a website dedicated to him, maintained by his family and experts in the field. I will go over once more. Thanks again for your attention. Murat (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have checked into this Rand revolt. The conflict seems to have taken place around march 1922. This makes the use of DH.9 as late as mid-Sepetember 1922 by the Turkish Armed Forces in fighting the Greek Army as possibly one of the last use in an armed conflict.I need more details on the Polish use. Murat (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Sanitago Rivas in British Combat Aircraft in Latin America, Peru deployed DH.9s in a campaign against rebels in 1924, carrying out armed reconnaissance missions over the rebel-held town of Chota, Peru. While they didn't engage in combat (because they didn't spot any rebels) the unopposed use of airpower was said to weaken the rebels will to resist. Nigel Ish (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Combat Use
Talk:PZL M26 Iskierka

message: In the USA: N2601M  Pibwl ←« 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

message: See Talk:PZL Mielec. Skalee (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct names 
Talk:Daulatpur–Saturia tornado

message: The name "Daultipur" is incorrect. The correct name of the upazila under Manikganj District is Daulatpur. This spelling corresponds to the Bengali name দৌলতপুর. --Ragib (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirmed the error and corrected it.  Thanks for pointing it out and fixing the text of the article.  Evolauxia (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name misspelled 

message: Please correct these Un realistic numbers. I have corrected some.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.206.66 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Un realistic numbers

message: While the rating given int he infobox is F3, the body gives a rating of "F3.5" (even though the scale doesn't support intermediate ratings) and states that estimated winds are in the F4 range. I can't see the source that gives the information, but since it does not appear that it's entire;y consisten about the intensity, should we list the rating as "F3+" instead? I have edited the infobox template to support such an addition. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force

message: I was reluctant to post this here because it doesn't require changing any graphics, but it does involve research: I have a personal photograph from 1989 of a "1990" Louisiana marker. Mapsax (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisiana marker dates 

message: The source on the Minnesota highways article that identifies 1969 as the year of implementation of the current marker, the in-house publication, actually states that the numerals were to be gold, not white. If so, techically a new graphic should be created to be consistent, with support of a RS. However, it's quite possible that the author misspoke, or that it was true at the time but was immediately altered. (Yes, it's another nitpick.) Mapsax (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota marker description
Talk:Nas Ne Dogonyat

message: The correct Phonetic translation is Nas Ne Dagonyat
True, however Wikipedia uses translit mostly.206.116.3.226 (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

message: This article could be merged - Please see the discussion at Talk:All the Things She Said#Merge proposal, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 
Talk:2000 Mozambique flood

message: Italic {geographytopic/y7thankyou}}Italic text  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.186.218 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Impacts change on the economy of Mozambique 41.13.68.211 (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography
Talk:Great Western Trail (Iowa)

message: Seems that the correct title on these duplicate articles should be simply Great Western Trail (Iowa) and not the Great Western Biking Trail.  The trail is multi-use and certainly not exclusively a bicycle trail.  The Biking Trail article could be merged in here, but much of the text reads as if the trail is not yet built.  Suggest the content from the Biking Trail article be reworked into this one, and the other article recommended for removal. 
GrandpaDave (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merger 
Talk:Stanley McCandless

message: It seems like inserting the article on his method would be reasonable. DJSparky (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I commented there as well, I agree.  The "method" article is a stub and would fit well here, with that article becoming a redirect. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem, especially if the redirect pointed to the section on the method. -JWGreen (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Prcisely! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the merge.  The old page points to the MM section here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with McCandless Method
Talk:Gene Anthony Ray

message: What is the evidence that his death was "AIDS-related" and not simply the result of his having suffered a stroke, which is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.? If a person diagnosed "HIV-positive" dies in a traffic accident, will you also put their article in the category "AIDS-related deaths" whatever the actual cause of death, just because of the "HIV-positive" diagnosis? 213.37.6.106 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over sensitivity like yours actually *promotes* stigma associated with HIV, as though complications related to it must be brushed under the carpet and attributed to something "normal" people get / have. The fact is, how ever Ray acquired HIV, he did have it, and HIV is *well known* to bee the root cause of many "complications" that lead to death. Ray had HIV. His HIV lead to a decline in his health. Part of that decline was a stroke. The stroke lead to his death. Get off your high horse. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source given does not state that Ray's death was related to his having HIV. We present facts that can be verified by reliable sources, not personal conjecture about someone's health. Pinkadelica♣ 19:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV

message: For World AIDS Day 2015, Queerty has run a long biography of Gene Anthony Ray, that would definitely be a good source for expanding this article:
: 
I'm unlikely to have a chance to work on it particularly soon, but perhaps someone else might do? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long biog in Queerty for World Aids Day 2015 

message: The article links to a Telegraph obit that claimed he was sacked from ‘Fame’ in 1984 but IMDb lists him as continuing in the series until its end in 1987? Fosterpann (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axed from Fame?
Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system hypothesis

message: ::The article's lead section refers to the 1997 paper, then provides the 2001 reference.  The former has been cited 25 times, the later 6 times.  The work has been cited by authors other than GF Clark.  I'm no immunologist, but prior to noticing this RFC I was aware of two papers which dealt with the idea that a developing fetus is essential a foreign body, and therefore prone to provoking an immune response form the mother, these are
::* Koelman et al. 2000. Correlation between oral sex and a low incidence of preeclampsia: a role for soluble HLA in seminal fluid? Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 46:155-166.
::* Robertson & Sharkey. 2001 The role of semen in induction of maternal immune tolerance to pregnancy. Seminars in immunology, 13:243-254.
::Koelman et al has been cited 23 times, Robertson & Sharkey 29 times.  
::GF Clark's grant does not mention the eutherian fetoembryonic defense system hypothesis in the abstract or thesaurus terms keyword list.  I don't find the Gordon Research Conference presentation convincing evidence of the theory being notably widespread in it's influence.  Presentations on the topic my several presenters would be required, a symposium on the theory would be convincing.  Also convincing would be use of "eutherian fetoembryonic defense system" in the keywords or abstracts of papers by several different authors.  I havn't seen any of these.  The article may meet the minimal standards of the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (science) notability guideline, maybe not this other one User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE.  In either case, this article strikes me as a clear example of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion and illustrates why WP has policies whch suggest avoiding Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself.  I note also that many of the arguments above take the form of crystal ball (WP not: crystal ball) predictions, that the theory will one day be recognized as important, but isn't quite there now.  In this case WP is being used to publicize a theory, rather than documenting a recognized and influential theory.  I'm not sure how I'd vote an an AFD, but this article illustrates nicely the problem of academics self-promoting their work on WP, rather than waiting for others moved by the importance of their work to fill in the gaps extant on WP. Pete.Hurd 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on RFC request

message: In my opinion this is an article worth keeping. The topic is infinitely more encyclopedic than a videogame character or Pokemon card. The debate above might have been appropriate if someone were trying to insert this material as a large segment of a broad topic article, but it does no harm to the balance of any other article by existing on its own. We should be welcoming real scientists willing to write brief and intelligible summaries of research topics, and helping them shape the material to reader intelligibility, not "wondering if it should be deleted". alteripse 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC response: Keep
Talk:2003 Okanagan Mountain Park fire

message: Please see Talk:Mount Lolo#Mount Lolo Fire.  I just know there was a fire by this name, I thought a contributor here might want to make that article.Skookum1 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mount Lolo Fire]]
Talk:California Victory

message: I plan on spear-heading this article and making it a very good source of information. Anyone who would like to help is welcome to. Minfo 04:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Team
Talk:Pinta (ship)

message: Wasn't the Nina the smallest ship of the three?  The Wikipedia article on the Nina shows her at 50 feet on the deck and 50-60 tons, somewhat smaller than the quoted specifications for the Pinta.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.213.252 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Just a suggestion of something that should be questioned:
The usual meaning of the word pinta or pinto, in present day Spanish, is "spotted", not painted.  As in "caballo pinto" = spotted horse.
The actual equivalent of painted in present day Spanish would be pintado or pintada, according to gender, from the verb pintar (to paint).
Unless someone has done the research and found that back then the word pinta meant painted, this translation should be reconsidered.
:Or it could mean pint. -- Beardo (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Pinta 

message: This post states that "La Gallacia's actual name was the Santa Maria", but on the page for the Santa Maria it's the other way around. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armcurls (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the good catch, Armcurls! I've clarified the confusing text in this article's lead.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Name of Santa Maria 

message: Do we need all that details about larger ships of the time ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larger ships 

message: when will it be coming through South tillo 107.122.97.33 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  American flag 

message: when will the American flag be coming through South tillo Tennessee 107.122.97.33 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  American flag