lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Springfield model 1871

message: The photo used in this article is incorrect. It's of an 1871 Ward Burton bolt action rifle. About 1000 of these were adopted for trials but had no active service. It is a completely different rifle from the Remington rolling block design. Mike Ege (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo is incorrect 

message: the Photo is not for Springfield Model 1871 rolling block, its for springfield Model 1871 Ward-Burton Bolt Action Rifle.
the link blow is Image for Springfield Model 1871 rolling block rifle
http://www.cottoneauctions.com/oldsite/old/images/CivilWarEra/springfield1871.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr sniper006 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Photo is not for Springfield Model 1871 rolling block rifle
Talk:Like a Stone

message: Greetings Wikipedians! I have edited this section because it lists other songs besides Like A Stone. This is an article about one particular song. Track listings are for recordings that have multiple songs, i.e. long-playing albums, movie scores, etc. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The article is about the CD Single. All other singles in Wikipedia provide the tracklisting. ( Redrkr (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  It's SOP here.  - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to sound ignorant, but what is a CD Single? It sounds like a CD with a single song on it, in which case there would be no track listing. Thanks, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Redrkr: With all due respect, I have to disagree with you. This article reads very much like an article about one single song. The first sentence says Like A Stone is a song released as a single from their debut album. The rest of the article keeps referring to "the song". It says nothing about a CD Single containing other tracks... until you get to the track listing. That's confusing, to me at least. Still, if you want it to include the CD Single track listing, why don't we include a sentence such as: "Audioslave's CD Single version of "Like A Stone" contained the following tracks...." Is that acceptable to everyone? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No response from anyone, so I made the change. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Track Listing
Talk:Schooner Te Vega

message: I don't know that these sections are really appropriate for an article such as this. Basically because they don't really add to the article. However it is quite incredible the wealth of documented sources regarding this ship.  I suggest that these sections be moved the talk page for the time being and these sources incorporated into references of the article.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the press/ In books sections 

message: Shouldn't USS Juniata (IX-77) merged into this one? Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I don't know why we're still talking about this; the other article should just be deleted. Its text is lifted more or less directly from a readily available public domain site, and contains inaccuracies in any case.  ~Andarin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.114.20.49 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge is finally completed. Brad (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already been there
Talk:Safe Harbor Dam

message: The lede is a single, 123 word, run-on sentence, filled with technical jargon, and confusing to read. Perhaps someone with expertise in civil engineering and geology could make the lead understandable to the reader. I am adding civil engineering, geology and river templates to this article. Expertise is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded the lead which should be understandable now. The rest of the article could use some work, geology and ecology are spread in two different section, but nothing more needing immediate attention IMO.--NortyNort  (Holla) 00:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede confusing 
Talk:Springfield model 1873

message: Okay, is there some reason all these pages have "model" written with a lower case "m"? I think it looks strange, and ought to be capitalized instead, like it is when you write "Model 1903" or "Model 1911". Is there some justification for using a lower case "m", or is it just a matter of the author's taste? Because if there isn't some specific reason for saying "model", I'd rather it said "Model", to be consistent with pages on other firearms (and other weapons in general, which AFAIK are always written with a capital "M"...Modelle 1875 cannon, Model 1917, Model 1903, Model 1911, Model 1852, etc) Always written with a capital. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "model" 
Talk:Springfield Model 1892–99

message: According to my sources - primarily the book "the American Krag Rifle and Carbine" by Joe Poyer, , North Cape Publications Inc., the Krag in US service was never known neither formally nor informally as a 'Springfield'. Therefore the name of this article is misleading and plain wrong, and it should be redirected to the relevant section of the article on the Krag-Jørgensen. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While the title needs improvement, the US series of Krag rifles have a large and unique history from the Danish and Norwegian rifles.  As a user has already noted in the talk section over there, the info and emphasis on the US rifles seem to push out the Scandinavian Krags.  As I said over there, combining the two articles would be like combining the various Mauser articles into just "Mauser (rifle)" -- it wouldn't present either the American or the Scandinavian families of rifles clearly. TeamZissou (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The sources your sources are citing refer to it as a Springfield, as that's what it's commonly called in government documents from the 1890s to WWI. Today, we generally refer to these rifles by "M189x Krag".TeamZissou (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article - should be redirected to [[Krag-Jørgensen#American_Krag-Jørgensen_rifles]]

message: The 1903 Springfield served as standard issue from 1903 up until the Garand was adopted in the late 1930s, and was still a "standard arm" up until the end of the war, in front line use in the early years. How could it "tie" with a rifle that only served 11 years? If there was some difference in the early models of 1903 that they changed on the adoption of the .30-06, that might explain it...but that would be a service period of 3 years, and I've never heard of this, or of them changing the designation...it's still the same rifle. AnnaGoFast (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  M1903 "tied as shortest serving rifle"? Huh?
Talk:Garden State Park Racetrack

message: You're welcome to rewrite it, but it is not advertising; that's actually what's going on there. It's a major redevelopment.  Information was taken fron the relevant links below.  You need to search through the sites to find the pertinent data. - CobaltBlueTony 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redevelopment

message: As a lifelong Cherry Hill Estates resident born in 1960, much is still to be added, besides what I added about the Carpenter Tract. Personally, as a 12 year old on a rainy Saturday afternoon with my father and Grandmother, visiting from her farm in Tennessee, when I got to see really wild horse at the starting gate: Secretariat. I remember that name, because I asked my father what a "secretariat" was, thinking it was a corruption of the word "secretary;" and my father explaining it using the Soviet example.
Also, I was an (all too close!) eyewitness to The Fire, with small embers raining down on our home in Cherry Hill Estates on that fateful day in April 1977 as we watched the smoke rise standing outside. What was interesting is that at that time we were hosting a high school exchange student from France; and Jean-Michel told us later that his parents saw the fire on the TV in Paris.
My mother has a stack of newspapers in the basement commemorating historical events: I'll have to see if she has the photos from The Inky & The Courier Post from the next day; scan them in, and get permission to post them here. Discpad 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyewitness accounts

message: What the he'll is wrong with you people I have the photos of the fire! Yesiam2dlb (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Raftery turfotos
Talk:Wake the Dead

message: The title is shared by a Celtic band & their first album. I'm not sure how to do that, but if I figure it out, I'll be back. 
Jennifer Brooks 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This title needs a disambiguation page
Talk:Westminster Theological Seminary

message: I just re-read the above discussion and the SPLC link in question, and I don't see the "link" that CaliEd claims is there. If I am right, this link is original research (not to mention guilt by association), and the reference to Horsley should be removed. (The part about WTS being "a bastion of theological conservatism" could stay except that it's not really even criticism.) --Flex 18:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redux

message: I changed the category to Colleges and universities in metropolitan Philadelphia and changed the template box at the bottom as well. There is a Westminster College in New Wilmington, PA, about 60 miles north of Pittsburgh, so perhaps that's where the confusion arose. The two institutions are not related. — Ortin19 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category and template 

message: I added this section because Westmisnter Theological Seminary is often host to important conferences and meetings that are of interest to many beyond its walls. Verification information for the first conference I posted can be found at the seminary web site. Trappermark 22:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this section because it does not appear to be notable or encyclopedic, the external links to blogs are in violation of WP:EL, and the external links to Theopedia should rather go to Wikipedia pages (whether or not they currently exist). --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Conferences and Symposia section 

message: why is this a part of WikiProject Texas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it has a small branch campus there. I asked about it a while back but got no response. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  but that's not even mentioned in the article, Unless someone actually adds Texas info to the article in the next week or so i'll prob remove it.Harlock jds 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  the Dallas, Tx, campus is mentioned in the intro to the article Trappermark 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Texas

message: I added "trustees".  And re-worded "subscribe" to match the language the seminary uses in their literature ("Westminster Theological Seminary - The Whole Counsel of God, (c)2006, WTS.").  Because of the controvesial nature of "subscription" in some circles, it is best to use the seminary's own language. Gjh tx 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add a Conn article! That's what WP is all about. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Academics
Talk:Highland Railway W Class

message: This article, like the one on the Railway itself, is very poorly written. Statements such as "get very little mention" (why? because the writer cannot find any? there must have been an article in Railway Magazine at the time when a new loco is built) and the words "obviously intended for working branch lines ...." and "it is not known how many were built" can hardly be of much help to a reader. As to the latter statement, the article itself, which looks as if it were taken from an Ian Allen loco list (I have one in front of me!) gives the numbers in BR days as 15051 and 15053, explaining the cryptic note "the numbering of survivors ... " but the article itself in the previous paragraph shows there to have been #25 and #46: if the BR numbering added 150 to the numbers, logic suggests a much larger number than two, surely? Peter Shearan 18:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 15051 and 15053 were their LMS Nos.  BR added 40000 to most LMS Numbers and these became 55051 and 55053. See .  I'd be very surprised if the research hasn't been done and published, but it'll be in books that I don't have. — Dunc|☺ 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to find someone with Highland Railway Locomotives - Vol 2 - The Drummond, Smith & Cumming Classes by J.R.H Cormack and J.L Stevenson  — Dunc|☺ 13:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is referenced but it sounds dubious because Dunrobin has inside cylinders and the W Class (according to the infobox) had outside cylinders. Perhaps the infobox is wrong. It is unusual for a British 0-4-4T to have outside cylinders. Biscuittin (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just unusual, but unheard of as late as 1905 - the front overhang would be colossal, and the yawing unacceptable even with a carefully-sprung rear bogie to stabilise it. Casserley & Johnston don't give the cylinder position, which normally indicates inside cyls; Cormack & Stevenson don't just state inside cylinders, they give photos to prove it; Haresnape also shows photos confirming inside cyls, but gives no dimensions. The error almost certainly comes from Baxter, which on p. 199 says "Cyls 14 x 20 O/S". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Near-clones of Dunrobin
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Insert-Belltower

message: 1. WP:CIVIL - Both sides have been uncivil however Amerique and WHS have either retracted and/or apologized for comments. Insert-Belltower has resisted owning up to or apologizing for this past conduct. Insert-Belltower did however accept Amerique's apology.
Insert-Belltower's Response: How is it appropriate that I apologize for issues warrant no apology? Neverthess, I have attempted to apologise twice to WHS for my preceived tone on the talk page, but it has only been met with consernation.
:You didn't attempt to apologize. All you did was issue to me an easily recognizable non-apology apology. Your statements:
:*"Seriously. Those comments about the soda and Myrtle Beach were not intended to be patonizing. I'm sorry if you took it that way.Insert-Belltower 03:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"WHS. I just re-read your statement. You mentioned that I sounded condescending when I stated that I think this is affecting your health. This is not what was meant by that. At the time, you seemed upset and everyone knows the stress is not good for one's health, so I suggested that you get a soda. Getting a soda usually helps me when I get stressed. I regret that you felt that I was being condesending towards you. I hope we can put this matter behind us now. What do you say? Insert-Belltower 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a stupid person, I-B, so please don't attempt to characterize me as such by saying you apologized when you did no such thing.--WHS 18:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the apology. In the future, I hope comments made by both our parties will be more civil. --WHS 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: WP:CIVIL 

message: After reading Doc Troppics comment I have a suggestion to Insert-Belltower and Amerique.  Why not try to request Mediation again (Formal or Informal through the mediation Cabal up to you). In this case however it would only involve the two of you (WHS, UCRGrad et all would not be involved).  That way you could discuss the issues you have with each other with out outside influence on either side with a Neutral Party over seeing it.  It could help to keep this issue from going higher and might even start to help with the other issues.  How do the two of you feel about this? Aeon Insane Ward 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to second the motion for another attempt at Mediation, and at the lowest level of "formality" the the parties are comfortable with. A move to de-escalate the situation certainly seems promising. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Mediation would be good for this case. The Mediation Cabal would be the least formal of the least formal, so to speak. I will recuse myself from any MedCab Mediation on this subject, as I wish to avoid any potential conflicts of interest here (having placed a critical OV in this RfC already.) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion
Talk:For You I Will (Confidence)

message: I noticed that the summary of the music video was a bit thin on detail, as the video actually has a narrative arc that wasn't really covered.  I re-viewed the video and briefly wrote up the three scenes presented in it.  The existing summary had been in place for at least several years, and at some point was thoughtfully updated to reflect Geiger's gender.  However, within the scope of the music video as a work of fiction, I don't really know that we can project the performer's gender onto a character portrayed in the past with a gender expression that differs from the performer's.  For this reason, I have chosen to write the summary in a way that does not ascribe a gender to Geiger's character.  I describe the two main characters as "a musician" and "a woman" portrayed by Geiger and Cavallari, respectively, and thereafter I refer to them as "Geiger" and "Cavallari," because it was very unwieldy to keep writing the two-word descriptors.  And I simply structured the sentences so that I never had to refer to Geiger with a singular pronoun.  I would suggest that gendered language be used to describe Geiger's character in this video only if Geiger has gone on record about it after announcing her transition, or if someone can point me to a Wikipedia guideline that covers this really weird, very specific situation (i.e., of an implied character who may or may not be the performer herself, in a format containing no speech or writing).  --DavidK93 (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Video Description
Talk:For You I Will (Monica song)

message: * A son's instrumental is no official b-side ...
* You don't have to add the name of the duet partner/feature/whatever to the chronology. The song's title is enough.
--Noboyo, 01:32, January 12, 2007 (UTC)
:Interesting, but how is an instrumental version which appears on the single not the b-side? A b-side does not have to be a completely different song - it's just the term for what appears on the other side of the single or, in this case of a modern single, what other tracks appear.
:On the other point, while I agree that it isn't imperative that it be listed in the chronology, at the same time I can't understand how it is at all harmful or disruptive to have that information. Is there any particular reason you believe this?
:Anyway, I'm going to add back the b-side, but I'll leave off the mention of Brandy for now. GassyGuy 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay ... 
Talk:Devil Woman (Cliff Richard song)

message: My impression of this is that there are two meanings for "Devil Woman" that have nothing to do with one another.  Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to go pasting the second definiton elsewhere if it has something to do with the song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.39 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: There's no way the Bruce Willis version is in any way a cover of the Cliff Richard song. That's like suggesting Linux is a cover of Windows.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist:
Cliff Richard Song
Bruce Willis Song
Rysin3 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Willis 
Talk:It's All in the Game (song)

message: Are album versions notable? Or only singles releases? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Album versions are notable, because otherwise wikipedia would just have articles on singles - which seems a bit stupid. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are album versions notable? 

message: I have removed the Cliff Richard single's sales figures of UK 250,000 and US 620,000 as no reference source was provided. The UK figure is simply the figure at which the Silver record was awarded, but the true figure is likely much higher as the record company "shipping" figure is 1,092,883 (although this could possibly be inflated, i.e. no gold record was awarded (to indicate a million over the counter sales). This sales figure is from "The Ultimate Cliff updated edition" by Peter Lewry and Nigel Goodall p206. The US sales figure simply seems rather high for a record that only managed no. 25 in the singles chart. Where did this figure come from? AusChartMan (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cliff Richard singles sales
Talk:1692

message: Please help merge 1692 in China with this article!--C xong (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Half the events of 1692 relate to the Salem Witch Trials?  This looks a touch unbalanced to me.--King Hildebrand 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 11-March-2007: Few Events Listed - Many of the yearly articles 1600-1699 have had very few recorded events (less than 9), while years after 1500 or 1700 list many more events.  Since the 1600s followed the Renaissance, there are obviously many events (recorded in books) to be listed.  However, data gathering has been slow for the century: even Google searches for the 1600s often return birth/death/deed events more than any other.  Sometimes it seems as though witch-hunts (and Puritanism) also burned most books/records from the 1600s.  However, it is a notable goal:  Wikipedia needs to list more events for the 1600s. -Wikid77 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparse events 

message: ::See: Talk:1650#Format. -Wikid77 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rupa Huq

message: Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles, in this case within the Konnie Huq article 84.69.85.231 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rupa_Huq]]
Talk:Cultural critic

message: To say "Walter Benjamin on the left" is an extremely huge oversimplification. The Frankfurt School had as much influence from the left as it did from the right. Considering them "lefty" sounds inaccurate to me. --Clementduval 05:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [untitled]

message: A cultural critic therefore stands, in relation to intellectual or artistic life, or certain social arrangements or educational practices, roughly where a prophet would in respect of religious life. What on Earth does this mean? The bold text immediately following it suggests that it was thrown in carelessly. – Scartol · Talk 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultural critics v. prophets? 

message: Why is there no mention in this list of C.G. Jung or Raoul Vaniegem, when Sigmund Freud and Guy Debord have their respects paid?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.245.81 (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable Cultural Critics" 

message: From the lead:  "A cultural critic is a critic of a given culture, usually as a whole and typically on a radical basis."
What does this mean?  Is it referring to political radicalism, and if so what is the source? --George100 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical basis?