lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:William H. Blanchard

message: May I please query if this is the same commander who on July 8th, 1947, had issued a press statement that a flying saucer had crashed near Roswell and that the Army had recovered the disk within hours ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Gatt (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, and it's odd we don't mention something about that in the article since that's certainly what he's most well known for (which probably wouldn't make him any too happy were he still with us). I don't know much of anything about Roswell and don't really have the inclination to add something about it here, but it's probably worthwhile to have a short paragraph or even just a sentence referencing his involvement with that and directing readers to the larger article.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Roswell incident

message: This article could use a description of Blanchard's rank when the Army separated the Air Force -- looking at his dates of service he must've begun his days as a US Army Air Corps officer and then transitioned when that service became known as the Air Force and was assigned a separate branch. I'm not sure of the dates or Blanchard's exact unit service so I'm not sure what to add. -- CaptainMike (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Army Air Corps

message: Was General Blanchard's rise through the ranks faster than normal for a Colonel of an out of the way outpost in New Mexico because of the Roswell incident? Was there a cover-up and he used this to gain promotion?
Monteh (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Blanchard's promotions
Talk:Lennie Baker

message: He seems too young to be part of Danny and The Juniors.  Are there any outside references to that?--Barryboyn (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a citation for his playing with Danny and the Juniors. It comes from his obituary in the June 2016 issue of Classic Images.Eddie Blick (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sean Langan

message: Bafta nominee Sean Langan, 43, who was working for Channel 4's "Dispatches" television series when he was abducted on March (by a crime gang with links to the Taliban on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border), was "safe and well" after release on June 21, 2008 in Islamabad, Pakistan.afp.google.com, British reporter released from capture after three monthsmirror.co.uk, Afghans release C4 journalist He had been held in a dark basement, suffered mock executions, shattered from his ordeal, and was suffering from dysentery. His interpreter, an Afghan called Sammy, was also freed unharmed.timesonline.co.uk, Film-maker Sean Langan kidnapped in Afghanistan is set free--Florentino floro (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The ordeal

message: Really needs improving, not very coherent. Hbatey1105 (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reads like a newspaper.
Talk:Double-toothed barbet

message: The classification is fucked up because IUCN is wrong. Bot-generated stubs suck (why you ask? Well, for instance, I'm not going to inform the author of the shit he posted here, because he doesn't know about the subject of the article anyway. And there is not much chance that someone will ever read this statement). And I'm not going to research the right classification in a language that is not my mother tongue, especially since this is not the only article where this kind of stuff happened. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification
Talk:American Society of Radiologic Technologists

message: I added the following information:
-The ASRT is currently advocating for the passage of Senate Bill 2412, or the Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screening (PALS) Act of 2021[1]. 
-This bill will delay instructions that would restrict women under the age of 50 from receiving mammograms from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which controls medical payments[1]. 
-The PALS Act of 2021 aims to block the USPSTF from enforcing these instructions until January 1st, 2028 and lower the age in which women can benefit from receiving mammograms to 40[1].
I got this information from:
-"Protecting Access to Lifesaving Screening Act of 2021". American Society of Radiologic Technologists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwebb2 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
Category talk:Osteopathic medicine

message: This is hopefully a beginning.  I'd like to involve others knowledgeable of osteopathic medicine in improving the quality of all Wikipedia articles related to the subject of Osteopathic Medicine.  Let's D.O. it! 
Link to all recent changes in Osteopathic medicine related articles : Recent Changes
::::Touro OsteopathicFreak T  02:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Osteopathic Medicine on Wikipedia
Talk:Antillean piculet

message: Only a couple of photos by one uploader ; I've already asked him about another one so will wait. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should chase him up, he did agree in general to give us a photo but never got back when I asked him to specify a license. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 08:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos
Talk:Innovation Place Research Park

message: Is there any reason that the buildings should have stand-alone articles (IT Building (2 Research Drive) and ISM Building (1 Research Drive))? I'm thinking a quick merge of useful content and redirect of those titles to this page is in order, unless anybody has a compelling reason otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate articles show no real indications of separate notability (as I tried to explain to the new editor), and read like press releases/marketing items for them. Any relevant information can be included here. A Google search on "ISM Building" "1 Research Drive" -wiki shows only 26 unique results - there's not a lot of significant coverage out there, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. We can leave those new articles as redirects to sections in this article. -- Gaurav (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles for buildings? 
File talk:Man holding sign during Iranian hostage crisis protest, 1979.jpg

message: what is going on here im 15 and would like to understand the context in this could some one reply to this please ?
:See the Iran hostage crisis of 1979.--Pharos 03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iranian hostage crisis protest for the discussion around the image. Other than it being at the time of the Iranian hostage crisis, the circumstance and significance of this particular image has not been established. Don't ask me how such POV imagery could make it to the front page. I opposed it. —Pengo 04:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I won't ask. ;) Jumping  cheese 12:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

message: I can sort of read the back of the sign.
.......se all americans now
Can anybody elaborate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrifer (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The back says "Release all Americans now." Hope I could've been of help! Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The back of the sign
Talk:The Lonely Forest

message: This band meets the requirements of being "significant."
:Thanks to whoever approved this! -Matt510 11:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but right now the article is empty and apparently has been since it's creation. The article will definitely be deleted if no one adds any content. Natalie 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did have content in the previous creation. I've advised him of this and he's asking the admin who deleted it to restore the content. -WarthogDemon 03:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the only problem, I'm an admin and I can restore the content to the user's talk page or something. Natalie 03:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd probably be helpful for the creator. -WarthogDemon 03:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it seems like my reasons for "significance" are sound.  User:Carlossuarez46 deleted the content and hopefully it can be returned. -Matt510 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pasted the original content to your user talk page. Natalie 03:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate it.  What will allow it to be put back on their own page? -Matt510 03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, go for it. Natalie 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (out-dent) I have restored it to the way it was before I deleted it; Matt, please add the sources for the claims of notability that you describe above and on my talk page.  I won't be deleting it again, some other admin will review whether or not it meets WP:CSD. I'm going to bed. :-)  Carlossuarez46 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Carlossuarez46, I have added in quotes from the publications they have been in as well as a like to a site that notes their win in EMP's competition.  I believe these were also mentioned in your talk page.  Thanks. -Matt510 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

message: This article needs to be cleaned up or rewritten to remove opinions/reviews which make the tone of the article non-neutral and promotional. Theshowmecanuck (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- — Keithbob • Talk •  11:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional and Non-neutral Tone 

message: I like this band but I'm not sure they meet Wiki's notability standard and so I have placed a tag on the article.  Also I have removed this ref note which appears to be invalid. The link provided led to a web page that made no mention of the subject and a search of that web site yielded was also not helpful in finding the proper page. Therefore, I'm posting the ref here in case someone can find a valid page and then the ref can be put back in the article. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  11:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been verified. Read through the history of the talk page and you will see all the discussion that was had about "notability". I am going to delete the tag because it has already been settled. Matt510 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Notability
Talk:Drighlington

message: The article states that there is only one school in Drighlington, when I lived there, they were 2 an infants school and a seperate junior school. What happened to them?Flibbs 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Article states that Drighlington is in the City of Leeds metropolitan district, but all Drighlington addresses are Bradford BD11 with no mention of Leeds or an LS postcode. Anyone can check this on Google Maps. What is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B227:B200:7C29:6251:F583:AA8D (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Postcodes and postal addresses do not always reflect local government boundaries, as in this case - see the table in the BD postcode area article. PamD 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the coordinates in the article and look at a large-scale OS map you can see that it's very near the point where Leeds, Bradford and Kirklees meet, but definitely the Leeds side of the boundaries. PamD 22:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan District 
Talk:Cyber Kong

message: Are you aware of the notable figure Dr. Takashi Yoshida, an author of books and articles about modern Japanese history and historiography?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.54.64 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  However, I moved this article to Cyber Kong.  Takashi Yoshida is currently a redirect to this article, should you want to create an article on him, simply edit it in over the redirect. McJeff (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Akira Tozawa

message: Since the subject is currently signed to WWE and his height/weight in the accompanying reliable source from WWE.com are in feet-inches and pounds respectively, I believe it would be correct to use feet-inches/pounds and that way we will not violate WP:NOR - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit of measurement
Talk:Green tinkerbird

message: Can't find anything on Flickr. Richard001 (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Not only does this read like a narrative rather than an encyclopaedia entry, it seems to have been plagiarised, at least in part, from:
Davies GBP, 2013. "Status of Eastern green Tinkerbird Viridibucco simplex in Sul do Save, southern Mozambique, and notes on selected bird species of the Sitila-Massinga coastal, tropical, semi-deciduous dry forest and thicket complex, Inhambane province". Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates 36:30-44.  See: http://www.durban.gov.za/City_Services/ParksRecreation/musuems/nsm/Natural%20Science%20Museum%20Novitates/Novitates%2036.pdf#page=32
--Drackles (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This looks exactly like a plagiarized journal article or abstract. No original content would say "this article". 2601:441:4400:1740:C19D:222B:66F:81FF (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible plagiarism
Talk:John H. Frey

message: There is another version of this article in Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-06-21#John H. Frey.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional material on 6/21/2007 AFC page 
Talk:Zograscope

message: This was on the main page, the informative bit needs to be verified. Jogloran 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reference said "latter half of the 18th century" so I used that. Not sure Americans know Georgian from Edwardian. Madinpursuit (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: The Zograscope (like so many things, for instance the Space Shuttle) is a German invention, as early as 1677. Please check the German Wikipedia article for details. 93.219.181.217 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  German invention
Talk:Guianan toucanet

message: There is something seriously twisted with the scientific name. S. culik or S. piperivorus, I think there has been an argument, a counter-argument, and a counter-counter-argument. I researched it once, but I couldn't figure out who was right after consulting Linnaeus. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IOC has now settled on S. piperivorus. If anyone is (still) disputing the validity of this name, please post details here. Failing that, I will take down the disputed tag. Loopy30 (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute
Talk:FNP (complexity)

message: Having just claimed that Complexity Zoo (the main reference for this definition) is wrong, I should explain myself.  For one thing, the other reference (Bellare and Goldwasser) define "NP relations" this way.  Second, as given on Complexity Zoo, FNP clearly cannot equal FP.  For instance, the relation n ~ 2^n (in unary or binary, no matter) is polynomially verifiable, but it's clearly not in FP: it would take more than polynomial time just to write the output.
Bitwiseshiftleft 03:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the verifier machine is polytime in x, rather than both x and y, I believe this is implied in the same way that NP certificates being defined to have polynomial length is redundant. But your modification is sufficient and somewhat nicer so let's keep it. Dcoetzee 10:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Emmanuel T. Santos

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]
Category talk:Clinton administration cabinet members

message: This category including only secretaries. What about these members, who are not a secretaries, but technically cabinet members, such as  Chief of the White House Staff, Trade Representative, Drug Czar, Ambassador in the UN, Director of the Office of Management and Budget and EPA Administrator? Darth Kalwejt 04:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. It sounds like maybe it might be ok to include them. Not sure though.  --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category scope
Talk:WLMZ (AM)

message: :File:WILK980.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:WILK980.PNG
Talk:WVIA-FM

message: As near as I can determine, WVYA is a full-powered repeater of WVIA-FM.  Also, I listened to an online stream, and the only time I even heard WVYA even mentioned was on the legal ID.  There's really no need for separate articles. Blueboy96 19:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for a separate WVYA article
Talk:Melaleuca leucadendra

message: M. leucadendra does occur in parts of Southeast Asia but Melaleuca cajuputi is more widespread and is probably the species that is used to produce cajuput oil and known as Cajuputi or the Cajuput tree. The Burke's Backyard link is dead and the Hong Kong street tree article does not mention Cajeput or Cajuput. I propose to remove the reference to Cajeput because it is misapplied to Melaleuca leucadendra. Melaleuca cajuputi is the cajuput tree or cajuputi.
I hope the author of this note is happy with the revision of 13 May 2015. Gderrin (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cajeput'' [sic] tree 
Talk:Fraxinus dipetala

message: Plants of the World Online shows this as a synonym of F. dipetala. Since there's so much info in this article, I thought it best to tag for merge rather than simply boldly redirecting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: POWO is not necessarily the authoritative source on plant taxonomy and most authorities focused on California and Baja California (Jepson, SDNHM's botany department, CNPS, and NatureServe) all consider this species distinct. Toyonbro (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont understand what you are pointing out. I would agree with PMC, since its a synonym.  BloxyColaSweet (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Fraxinus parryi]] into [[Fraxinus dipetala]]
Talk:Henryk Grynberg

message: Was Henryk Grynberg a Jew? The page at present has no content on this point, merely as indicated by the category "Polish Jews." -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish identity? 
Talk:Spider-Man (1977 film)

message: Where is that figure of $512 million coming from? Seems odd for a film that wasn't released worldwide at the time to get that gross.Crboyer (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's complete nonsense. The only thing I can imagine is that the person meant to write £5.12 million or something. Otherwise it's a troll.★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I found a book which says it earned 9 million dollars.★Trekker (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross?! 

message: The plot section of this article is basically a synopsis or a blurb, using a few POV statements and only having a single paragraph of text. It seriously needs to be fixed. WikiSmartLife (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:Magic: The Gathering (1997 video game)

message: I remember I think this game really failed bigtime (I used to have it) because there was no multiplayer support/option when it first came out. Just think........if this game HAD been successful perhaps we never would have had magic online, and anyone could play with alpha and early set cards. Sigh, at least there's magic workstation. The snare 04:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiplayer aspect

message: "Sensing trouble with the Magic project, the famous and marquee Sid Meier was assigned to it. This game would be the last that Sid Meier would ever work on with MicroProse, as he went on to found his own studio, Firaxis Games, shortly afterward."
His name is -not- in the credits. Is there any source to this? VDZ 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sid Meier is credited with Game Design and Programming. You were looking at the credits for one of the expansions, maybe? --213.67.23.49 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sid Meier working on this game? What the...? 

message: I've added info on Manalink 2.0 as it vastly improves the game Plutar (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited this part for details and accuracy.--213.67.23.49 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has been removed as it doesn't improve the article at all, plus it is an unofficial mod.    ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manalink 2.0