lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Landseer dog

message: Moving text from article--posted here 8  hours ago "to translate" but hasn't been translated. I'd rather just remove this text from this version of wikipedia & let someone translate directly from the current version of the other languages when they're ready to do the work, but for the moment I'll put it here.  If translation isn't done by the next time I check back, I'm inclined to delete this whole article. Elf | Talk 07:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign version

message: When I watched the film, I was pretty sure it was a Landseer Newfie. However, anon user 24.15.133.137 changed it, saying "  (The movie used a Great Pyrenees, not a Landseer Newfoundland.)"  Since it's anon, I can't query the user for his source of info, and I can't find anything on the web that tells me for *sure*; everything I've found refers to it in general as a Newfie (without ever saying something like) "played by fred, the newfie owned & trained by...)")--except for one user page that says they're pretty sure from watching the film that it's a Great Pyrenees.  I am not familiar enough with the breeds to say for sure.  Can anyone find any definitive answer on this? Elf | Talk 19:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Trivia pertaining to Finding Neverland dog Nana is incorrect anyways, actually. Nana was supposed to be a Newfoundland dog (it states this in the live-action movie and the book itself), so unless you consider the Landseer and Newfoundland dog as the same breed, Nana is not a Landseer.(Foxpen 01:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breed in [[Finding Neverland]]?

message: There is nothing in the article telling e reader that this breed has any connection to Germany.  Does it? Or is it simply an offshoot of the Newfoundland? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breed's origin 
Talk:Cup holder

message: Most of this entry is ripped almost verbatim from this Slate article.  Someone should rewrite it completely.
*Eh? I don't see anything in this article that is "verbatim" from Slate. Feel free to add it as a source if you think that's where the info was gathered from. JayMars 03:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I just broke out coffee cup sleeve into its own article. Someone should break out the cardboard thing used to carry multiple cups, and maybe make a disambig page.   FiveRings (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking out "multiple beverage carrier" 

message: Cup carrier redirects here, but it should point to drink carrier. I am going to  be bold and just change it.
A carrier is used by a person to transport a drink by themselves.
A holder is more of a permanent mounted device in a vehicle.
I see so little topic distinction here that drink carrier could easily be merged into this article with very little trouble.
DMahalko (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: good catch on the redirect.  But the reason I broke out carrier is because that's part of the food utensil category, and cup holder isn't. FiveRings (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cup carrier]] has wrong redirect to here 

message: There seems to have been no mention of the free standing cup holders designed to sit on a flat surface like a desk or table to hold a cup of hot drink eg tea or coffee, to stop it being knocked over and causing damage or injury. I have started a basic section on these.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmen1 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Standing Cup Holders 

message: Cup holders were introduced into the Second generation (1955–1957) Chevrolet Bel Air, from 1955, hence into the '55, '56 and '57 models - and not only into the 1957 model as currently stated in the article.
For examples of the two types of cup holders (drinks holders) still sold today to Chevy Bel Air enthusiasts renovating their 1955-57 model, see http://www.classicchevy.com/chevy-console-with-drink-holders-floor-1955-1957.html; http://www.classicchevy.com/chevy-console-bench-seat-with-drink-holders-shorty-1955-1957.html# 101.162.161.231 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chevrolet Bel Air (1955 - 57) 

message: CITATION PROVIDED
http://www.radair.com/2013/07/automotive-fun-fact-how-cup-holders-arrived-in-american-autos/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.146 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920s car cup holders CITATION NEEDED 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Aggie Cupholder. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 19#Aggie Cupholder until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aggie Cupholder" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Template talk:Test0

message: It would be very useful if the addition of , etc. were automatically to put the User in a category of "Vandals to be tracked", so as to generate a list of these people. What happens often enough is that the warnings are ineffectual.
I tried doing this, on the model of , but it doesn't seem to work, maybe because these are User Talk pages that  is applied to. Is this worth pursuing?
I'm posting this here as well to get maximum visibility, but please centralize responses to the Test Template Talk page.Bill 13:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Using these templates to track vandals

message: Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you.  15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OWNED!  15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neh?

message: Is this template really necessary? It seems kind of akward to use the term "talk page" on a template designed for newcomers. Also, maybe the wording could be changed a bit, because "potentially controversial edits" do not describe most vandalism, in which the vandal would vandalize just a section. Freddie Message? 01:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this template might be useful, I think it is misnamed. The "test" templates are for warning newbies who do test edits in the live 'pedia (and such test edits are often vandalism). These templates are not for "controversial edits". The test0 template should be milder than , and should assume the edit was done in good faith by a naive editor. Naive edits by newbies are typically random text and wikicode generated by the buttons above the edit window. Not really a "controversial edit" that should be discussed on the talk page. This template needs to be renamed, or rewritten to provide text more suitable to its existing name.--Srleffler (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All true, which is why there's a new set of template messages that people are encouraged to use at WP:WARN. The old ones are just around for those who are used to using them, etc. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this even necessary?

message: I've moved the documentation to the subpage.+mwtoews 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved documentation

message: Should we remove "hello" in the template? Kamope · talk · contributions 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hello" 

message: I've never seen this template on a user talk page before.  Also, I think the wording is pretty suspect: people should not be taking "controversial edits" to be vandalism at all, for instance.  I was thinking we could just redirect this to Template:Test1.  Mangojuicetalk 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone actually use this?
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

message: Hiya! I noticed that the second-most recent "Comix" is not connected to the most recent one. When you click "previous comix" on the new one, it sends you back two comixes ago, and the second-most recent one does not link to the new one. I don't really know how to fix that, but I wanted to make editors that might know how to fix it aware! EdoAug (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre but true -- fixed now, thanks for the tip. jp×g🗯️ 04:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation bugged, Comix? 

message: Do we still record pageviews for every issue? I'm curious to see how the various columns performed, especially the Special report (no pun intended)!  Oltrepier (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they are all in the header at the top of Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. jp×g🗯️ 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  View stats for 20-7
Talk:Glover's Rock

message: Roy,
What you are doing to my articles is defacing and vandalising my articles.
Supercool Dude 09:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you feel that way.  I'm just cleaning them up.  Mostly what I did was condense material that was mentioned in several articles into the one article where it seemed most appropriate.  This is a communal venture, articles don't belong to one particular person; anybody (yourself included) can come along and make whatever improvements they feel are needed.   If there is something in particular that I did to the Glover's Rock article that you object to, I'd be happy to discuss it, or you can revert the changes if you feel that strongly about it.   RoySmith 13:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Aviophobia

message: Aviophobia is an utterly ridiculous word.  Why not "fear of flying"?  In relation to aviophobia, fear of flying 1)is plain English, and thus easy to understand, 2)is only four syllables, and thus two syllables shorter than aviophobia, 3)is not a terribly constructed Latin-Greek hybrid, 4)doesn't mean 'fear of birds'.  I therefore propose that the name of the article be changed to "fear of flying".  Aviophobia is not only a barbarism, but also unneccesary.  Mauvila 10:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviophobia - terrible word
Talk:IBM Information Management System

message: I don't understand why this article has not been flagged as an advertisement: "...IMS is still going strong over 40 years later..."  In what sense is it "going strong"? Certainly not in terms of market share among database systems.  Does that mean that the last few installations of it are still running?  No new database would be set up with IMS.  That sentence should be taken out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CousinJohn (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This IBM hype is more of an advertisement than a Wikipedia article  

message: "SQL owes its heritage to DL/I" is nonsense. SQL is a (somewhat inaccurate) implementation of ideas first raised by Ted Codd - see Relational modelfor history. DL/I (part of Information_Management_System) is the best-known instance of the [Hierarchical model]. So I'm removing the sentence.Philcha 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SQL and DL/I

message: This article is detailed but not really something someone (even a computer science student) could look at to appreciate IMS (but they may understand the btrieve article).  I guess my goal is to get it so a bank teller wondering what this IMS thing she/he uses all day is all about (even if they don't understand what VSAM, HIDAM, SSA's, etc are).  I tried explaining DB a little more generally, but it's late and I'm sure someone has a better way of explaining it.  DC explanation needs work and a mention of the deadlock detection feature should def make it up here.  Long live IMS! Jonnyct (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon 

message: If I'm thinking of the same product, we always called it InfoMan rather than IMS, but that may just have been our company. Has anyone else heard it referred to it by that name? --Jameboy (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt. name
Wikipedia talk:Typo/capitalization

message: I started in on this list, removing false positives, but after going through lists #10,11 and 12, I thought I recognized a few names. On checking 1,2,6,11,12,13,20 and 21 I found that they are all either identical or very similar. Examples of repeated text are matches in ADA, AIDS, Adolf Hitler. (I only list these because they are words that stand out in memory). All the lists start with numbers and end before completing even the A's.
I like this idea and would be willing to work on it, but clearly a new list needs to be generated.--Bookandcoffee 19:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeat lists 

message: Well, I found the programming bug that caused the duplication.  Looking at the false positive issue led me to the conclusions mentioned on the front page. ::sigh:: -- Beland 14:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The End
Talk:Data loss

message: Should this not be moved to the Wiktionary instead of being deleted?
Thryduulf 10:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the topic is encyclopedic.  Data loss is hardly a word or term on its own.  It's closely related to Backup and other IT topics. -- Austin Murphy 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete topic?

message: The section titled Organizational Responsibility seems to be discussing data exposure rather than data loss.  I personally think that section should be deleted as irrelevent to this article.
Public Menace (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizational responsibility

message: There should be a section on compression techniques which lose data on purpose to reduce the size of files, images, and video streams, but do not render the resulting file "broken" or "lost". This same section should also reference compression techniques used on data which are considered loss-less to prevent people from assuming all compression will lose data. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  JPEG, MPEG, and similar techniques which lose data on purpose 

message: Any systemic information in nature isn't lost, simply merged with quantum decoherence noise. Thus practically any systemic information gets lost if the system isn't degenerate and spatially confined, also time allows noise to accumulate. If someone dies here in Earth, we cannot revive him following each particle history, simply because that history is mixed with quantum noise. I repeat - time increases the noisy interactions. Noise can be statistically modelled, but never exactly. Thus information gets mixed with noise and practically lost to us. We theoretically know that quantum noise is fundamental and ubiquitous. We also know that we cannot predict accurately noise data, only their behaviour pattern. Believe me, if you want to revive the dead, you need the exact data, not a generic noise pattern modelling. If you cannot fundamentally revive the dead (even if you had the best future technology) then information can be mixed with quantum noise and practically lost. This is a fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4112:1900:F40F:B2D3:70B5:9E51 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not mentioned here: data loss is a fundamental natural law
Talk:Groat (grain)

message: Should we have an article for groats, or does it belong in Wiktionary? Brequinda 13:33, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one think it could become a decent article, we're concerned more of the history of things like this than a dictionary is. Oh, and I'm adding a  to the top of the page. What the heck are these things, anyways? I came here from the table at cereal. BigNate37(T) 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary? 

message: I don't think groats are crushed. 
Fkaser 16:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not crushed 

message: It would be fine to see the nutritional content of various groats presented in the article..
--Philopedia (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wish 

message: When I looked at the article on dehulling and read this article in its entirety, I was left with the question, do groats have hulls or not? The word "hulled" in the first sentence of the article can be interpreted either way: the grains still have their hulls (as in "the coated chops")
or the hulls have been removed (as in "the skinned rabbit"). 99.247.209.101 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulled or Dehulled? 

message: The article says that groaty pudding is also known as "groaty dick" ... is this vandalism, or can someone provide a encyclopedic citation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.213.54 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "groaty dick" 

message: Did anyone actually check the 'source' for the claim that NFL players eat groats for energy?
The link is just some guy's blog where he says the exact same thing without citing a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.1.38 (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL players? 

message: "Groats" redirects to the main article "groat", but OED lists the word only as "groats", with a plural concord. The singular is not used. 87.157.63.172 (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of singular

message: How about a definitive pronunciation? anybody?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30B:8291:2969:CD85:FBEC:747B:6270 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gruts, Billy. Gruts for tea.  Fried in butter.  Mr Larrington (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What?
Talk:Chlorocebus

message: One thing is for sure: thisarticle definitely needs a section on the legendary vervet monkey alarm calls. I say legendary, because just about everyone writing on the evolution of language is bound to mention these calls. Ariosto 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why aren't you writing about it? - UtherSRG (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be sure, I do mention them in my papers. But as a non-expert, I wouldn't dare to write anything authoritative (and I take Wiki to be an authoritative source) on them. Regards, Ariosto 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and add something here. If you have a citation for it, which you must if you've put it into a paper, then you should most certainly feel free to put that information here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone has made a brief nod to the call in the Vervet Monkey article.  ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: alarm call

message: Shouldn't this page be combined with the vervet page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arges86 (talk • contribs).
:No. One is a genus article, the other is a species article. I'll leave it to the reader to learn which is which. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vervet

message: Shouldn't this page redirect to either Vervet monkey or Green monkey? Cheers, Jack 
(talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: A lot of the previous comments seem to arise because the terms vervet and green monkey are being used both for the genus and two of the species. I've edited so that the genus is consistently referred to as Chlorocebus, while the vervet and green terms are used only (a) for the species (b) when quoting sources or their titles that use them in this way. However, the section on Use in scientific research and vaccine production still needs attention. One of its references doesn't saying anything relevant to the claim; the other you have to pay to view. --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus & species names
Template talk:WikiProject status/Inactive

message: Discussion archived here from WP:TfD.
Meta-inactive. -- Beland 12:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD 

message: Currently, the template contains the words "If you are not currently a member of the project, please consider joining it to help." This makes no sense to me. At Wikipedia, there are tons of things that need volunteers. Why would we direct the precious resource of people's time and dedication to an inactive wikiproject, of all things? There is no need to keep wikiprojects alive artificially; they come and go in a natural cycle. Wikiprojects are only a means to an end; if people abandon one of them, then it's well possible they did so for a reason; maybe it has served its purpose and is no longer needed, or the idea wasn't as good as it first seemed. I will therefore be bold and remove this sentence. — Sebastian 22:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut the advertisement to non-members
Talk:Eastern Slavonia

message: The whole point of this page is moot because it was created as a link from UNTAES. Eastern Slavonia per se is a term that exists, but there isn't much to say about it in encyclopedic context. The uppercased "Eastern" in the phrase into which the abbreviation "UNTAES" expands is only due to English spelling rules, they only refer to some of the eastern parts of Slavonia, not the whole eastern portion of it. --Joy [shallot] 14:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: pointless

message: did some minor changes in the text of the last paragraph, to show that Serbs are not "newcomers" on these lands74.12.107.95 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: anonymous comment

message: The map is wrong, it shows only portion of eastern Slavonia as a geographical area. What is really shown is part of the former Republic of Serb Krajina in Slavonia (1991-1995). I'm deleting this map.--Plantago 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After the fall of RSK the eastern part of the republic was known as Eastern Slavonia the map is right -- Esemono 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map
Category talk:Inactive WikiProjects

message: In my opinion, many of these inactive projects need to be put in MFD and deleted. If a project clearly has little to no activity, and no one has shown interest in a while: it shouldn't be around. RobJ1981 07:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong about the template, it is working, I goofed.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: It probably doesn't really matter, but I don't see that this has anything to do with the Wikipedia Project, it's a category not an article aboutWikipedia.  But it should be part of the Wikipedia Project Council, I won't change the other tag, that's their business - they at least ought to assess it NA though- but I will add ours.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project

message: Please take notice, further discussion of inactive projects and the policies and guidelines regarding the same are taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects, Miscellany for Deletion AND Wikipedia:WikiProject reform.  Current participants are discussing the need for centralizing this discussion, but until then, any interested parties should refer to all of the above pages.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All Discussion will now be centralized at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Inactive_projects.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Inactive Projects going on at other pages