lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:FFF

message: In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Los_Angeles_street_gangs, FFF is named as a now-defunct white gang in California. This disambiguation page makes no mention of a gang. - vajdaij
Taken care of.  Gnossie 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

message: FFF, short for Fred Flintstone Format, is sometimes used to refer to numeric dates in M D Y order.  Many countries, for example in Europe, prefer D M Y order, but ISO 8601 calls for Y M D order, which, used with separators, should be correctly understood wherever Gregorian dates are used.
BRF has been suggested for Y D M order.
82.163.24.100 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFF Dates
Talk:What If? (essays)

message: The link to Thomas Fleming is the wrong guy.
:Looks like somebody fixed this, it's the right guy now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Did you not read Wikipedia:Notability_(books)?  Mere reviews don't make a book notable, thousands upon thousands of books have reviews in the news or in J-STOR, but that does not make them notable.  I still feel these articles are promos, an indiscriminate list, and a bit coatracky, but fine, the discussion was keep.  (And I'm generally an inclusionist!)  So, whatevs. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. Looks like we read Wikipedia:Notability_(books) differently. It says "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: 1) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Certainly we can't count things like JSTOR, much less the anonymous "reviews" at amazon.com or similar.  But reviews in multiple major reliable sources do count toward notability, to the best of my understanding. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: And hopefully the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Alternate_History could be called upon to make this better. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete discussion
Talk:Mega Powers

message: I think a better TNA parody would be Jay Lethal, Sonjay Dutt, SoCal Val angle from 2008. Lethal was Black Machismo parody of Macho, Dutt wore a bandana like Hulk would, and Socal Val like Miss Elizabeth the woman who cause the split between the two friends. It's essentially the same storyline with few differences. Seasrmar (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Better TNA Parody
Talk:Angel of Independence

message: "Albeit the popularity of the statue and the monument itself as an "Angel", it has often been pointed out that angels lack a gender, whereas the Winged Victory this statue represents is clearly femenine.  It is perhaps because of the poetical conception of the Winged Victory as an Angel of Freedom, or Independence, that this name has gained its everyday use."  
... Non sense, this is a Victory Column, the term ANGEL is just a popular misconception. There’s  NO angel. As in any other Victory Column we have NIKE, the Greek Goddess for Victory. And specifically in this column,  She is crowning Hidalgo with Laurel, the Greek symbol for Victory.
ALEVP (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed incorrect paragraph
Talk:Edward S. Miller

message: Washington Post article last week, as well as some from 1980 when he was on trial, give his middle initial as "G".  Anyone know which is right?  PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
:New York Times consistently gives S. Jokestress 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle initial?
Talk:Cycloalkane

message: The text mentions those two phenomena, without giving any explanation about them. Albmont 14:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipsing of hydrogen, puckering of the ring 

message: The definition says that a cycloalkane can only have sex with hippos while hydrogen is attached to the rings; this would exclude, say, methylcyclohexane from being a cycloalkane. Is this the correct definition? Also, the formula CnH2n is only valid for cycloalkanes with just one ring, the general formula would be CnH2(n-g+1) where g is the topological genus. Albmont (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote much of the introductory section to improve the flawed definintion and general formula.  H Padleckas (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Are s saturated, because they are only bonded by single bonds, or unsaturated, because if one of the carbon bonds was broken, you could attach two more hydrogen atoms? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cycloalkanes are saturated.  When determining whether bonds can be broken to add two more hydrogen atoms, the breaking of single bonds (as in cycloalkanes) does not count.  H Padleckas (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturated? 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a section on any known toxicity of these compounds, since they are used in hand-cleaning and de-greasing products?  
JPFitzmaurice (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: Cyclic siloxane, borazine, hexachlorophosphazene, borazine are examples of inorganic rings that has entered the discussion of inorganic contents in aromaticity; so this collection of chemical compounds shall have its own article, that I recommend be created using the Ring (chemistry) redirect and includes wiki-links to cycloalkane, aromaticity. - Mountainninja (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this [[Ring (chemistry)]] redirection to this [[Cycloalkane]] article good enough to reflect knowledge ? 

message: I believe it should be 169° not 69° as listed.  Just a typo.
OsamaBinLogin (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclononane Boiling Point
Talk:Pounce (powder)

message: I belive this article needs a well writen section on the types of pounce used in calligraphy, ie Gum Sandarac which is used as a resist to avoid feathering and cuttlefish bone which is used to absord excess ink afterwards.
They where usually mixed together for convenience.
Unfortuntely I do not belive that I could add a section of sufficient quality (I can write nicely, but am not so good at composition). 2A00:23C3:37D0:5100:D482:2842:1333:AA51 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Pounce
Talk:Breakneck Ridge

message: I removed this picture from this page:
because it is neither taken from nor taken of Breakneck Ridge.  It is taken from Bull Hill and is pointing in the opposite direction!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.123.180 (talk • contribs) 
Thanks for the heads-up. When I found it on Flickr it was so identified. Daniel Case 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong mountain

message: The New York–New Jersey Trail Conference has, this year (2014), inaugurated a trail steward program for the mountain. Link here, press release here, for future use as sources. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY/NJTC trail steward program
Talk:Lattice gauge theory

message: OK, I really suggest merging Lattice field theory and this one in some sensible way, then perhaps renaming the whole "lattice field theory" as that is more generic.  Otherwise you don't know what to link to from other articles.  If, however, there really is something more specific to "lattice gauge theories" that cannot be covered in the main article, then a new article can be started.  But I am really doubtful; the distinction between "lattice theories with pure gauge actions" and "lattice theories with fermions/particles in it" doesn't seem to warrant having separate articles, which would largely anyway just repeat each other. 131.111.8.96 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the merger proposal, it seems much more useful to the reader. There is no point in describing twice the same stuff. The articles are both very short. If, in the future, someone will decide to elaborate further on lattice gauge theories, Symanzik improved action etc., then we can rethink the merge issue. As it is, the reader will profit from a merged article. Setreset (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge suggested 
Talk:Hans Vaihinger

message: I can't believe this guy is not better known today than he is. He completely antiicipates Rorty and the other postmodern pragmatists and constructivists. Does anyone out there know of others who have cited or been influenced by Vaihinger's writings other than the oft-cited-in-this-context Adler? (anon, 8 June 2005)
----
# His Philosophy of As-If is practically impossible to obtain. Maybe Project Gutenberg will someday scan it.
# His notion of "useful fictions" is so radical and deep that it cannot be understood by most people.
# The only thing that keeps his name alive today is his connection to Nietzsche's perspectivism. When the fascination with Nietzsche passes, Vaihinger may become totally unknown.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.12 (talk • contribs) 4 Sept 2005.
----
Can anybody find out, in how far the Nazi ideology in GERM before 1945 is based on Vaihingers ideology (I mean: In (modern) physics it is more about predicting the behaviour of an experiment than fantasising about the existence or character of light or so (e. g. in Double-slit_experiment nobody would say "light is a wave" today - we would say "the resulting pattern can be predicted by geometrical considerations based on waves in a lake"; here we see, why Physics needs (good) experiments, and why physicists-jokes often make fun of this approach (e. g. when a physicist wants to validate "the odd numbers are the prime numbers" he says "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is observational error, 11 is prime, lets try a bigger number: 101 is prime -> the theory is good"))...)? --213.54.76.45 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Salience (language)

message: I have wikified the lead to make the definition a little clearer. The first two paragraphs of the discussion section seem irrelevant to the topic of salience. Anyone agree? BenC7 06:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance? 

message: Shouldn't the Crano section be merged with the Communications Studies part ? (Or just be removed, as it is partly redundant with it ?) IMHO, a separate section with biographical information is just misplaced here, in particular as there are many models and applications of different conceptions of salience in different disciplines of linguistics and neighboring fields that cannot be listed here for reasons of brevity. Chiarcos (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crano section? 

message: Dr. Booth has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Booth has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Alison Booth & Patrick Nolen, 2012. "Salience, Risky Choices and Gender," CEPR Discussion Papers 659, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Booth's comment on this article
Talk:1T-SRAM

message: For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1T-SRAM
----
This article reads like marketing material and is in need of fixing. Too many fuzzy statements like "speed comparable to SRAM (at multi-megabit densities)". An unsupported claim like this shouldn't be presented as fact. JSB73 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Death-grind

message: This article was listed for deletion on 26 May, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of keep.  This article will not be deleted.  You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Death-grind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed deletion listing
Talk:Godwin's law/Archive 1

message: Revert isn't working, so I'm going to re-insert this paragraph:
Note that when discussing with actual Nazis, Godwin's Law should not typically apply, as Hitler is bound to come up on one or the other side of the argument sooner rather than later. It is also interesting that, among Nazis, a "reverse Godwin's Law" exists where, as an argument devolves into a flame war, there is an increasingly greater probability that one or the other side will invoke a comparison to Jews as an insult, much the same as a comparison to Hitler or Nazis is regularly an insulting one.
The justification for removing it, 'inaccuracy' is a little bit too vague for such a large slash, eh? Krupo 17:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
:This works, but may need some explanation...I don't know of any online fora where avowed Nazis hang out (and would avoid it even if I did know).  Is there an example? - 158.71.25.112 18:08, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinsertion 

message: quote: "The likelihood of a comparison between the intelligence of a proposition's defenders and that of its attackers is directly proportional to the length of the discussion, and approaches 1 as the number of posts approaches infinity."
That's saying that the comparison never happens; ie. It will only happen if the number of posts is infinity.
Doesn't make sense.
:Sure it does. Just because the likelihood of something isn't 100% doesn't mean it doesn't happen. --jpgordon{gab} 02:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axioms of Internet Discussion 

message: Nazi comparisons are nice to criticise ideological phrases that belong to the common consensus.
Eg. the nazi party program said that an intented lie in the media shall be forbidden. The nazi comparison is based on the consensus that nazism is evil among all persons in the debate. Similar in earlier times bible sources were quoted to prove something as it has authorative powers over believers.
The fact why nazi comparisons are used is that they are so powerful.
Godwin's law just says you cannot compare it, but not the comparison itself is wrong. The only thing that's wrong is the intention behind the use of the argument to distract the debate, and that the other side is unable to respond as there is the common consensus behind. Gordon' law is just a workaround but it does not answer the comparison.
* Under the heading Miller's Paradox, you say "citation to Godwin's" when I think you (or the author) means "citation of Godwin's". One cites something, or encounters a citation of something. On the other hand, one can make reference to something, or refer to it. Could we adjust the scrappy English? Brequinda 11:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's a direct quote and thus we can't adjust the scrappy english. "[sic]" afterwards might work, but for a minor grammatical point it doesn't seem worth the ugliness. CXI 09:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology criticism
Talk:Tom Mix

message: Conflicting research information on Tom Mix's birthplace. So citation here as Mix Run is not certain. Two seemingly reliable sources conflict: 
History.com cites birthplace as Driftwood PA
An Oklahoma state University history page cites birthplace as Mix run PA
Any suggestions / votes on how to handle the reference? Stevemidgley (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of birth

message: Under early years:
“He was briefly sheriff of Dewey, Oklahoma.”  
Is this accurate?  Dewey is in Washington County and the county seat is Bartlesville.  First of all, even if Dewey was the county seat at the time (was it?), the sheriff would not have been sheriff “of Dewey,” but would have had his office there as sheriff is a county office, its  chief law enforcement officer.  It is an elected position.  Is it possible Mix had been a town marshal?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mix was a "sheriff"?   

message: Just attempted my first edit.  I tried to go back to correct spelling and notice my edit was apparently deleted.  What am I doing wrong?  Thanks in advance, Bootsm Bootsm (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Mix’s horse Tony
Talk:Lewis Hine

message: User:Hottentot tried to move this page to Lewis Hine by doing a delete - copy text move, rather than a proper move.  I've reverted.  If it needs to be moved, please use the move function.  kmccoy (talk) 20:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: When I saw the picture of the little mill girl, Addie Card, I immediately felt compelled to find out what happened to her.  I was surprised to learn that I wasn't the only one who had that reaction to her famous picture.  This article is an interesting chronicle of a genealogist's efforts to figure out her story.  I'm not sure if it belongs in External Links, so I thought I'd post it here for opinions on that. --Hiddekel 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addie Card 

message: I would argue that article should be listed under "Lewis W. Hine." This is the version of his name that he generally used, as documented by the numerous examples of his credit stamps reproduced on the website of renowned photography museum George Eastman House, which holds a very large collection of Hine photographs:
http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=Lewis_Wickes_Hine/Stamps  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoindex21 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority Name 

message: Headline says it all, and I have no idea how to move it. Its the photo under the text "Notable photographs".216.49.150.199 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in wrong spot 

message: The Getty Museum has made many of its photos freely available, including six taken by Hine. Here they are, FYI, if someone more wiki-adept wanted to add any of them to the gallery. chomsky1 18:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Free Hine Images 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Baseball glass workers2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 22, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Baseball glass workers2.jpg]] to appear as POTD 
Talk:Chattooga River

message: An article about a river that doesn't say where it flows to? How odd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.44.165 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to?

message: It seems that the last paragraph of the Rafting and Boating section has a noticeable bias created by recreational paddlers. This should be remedied in the future.
Willice0 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the Rafting and Boating Section 

message: Ive always monitored this page to see what people say. and in the very beginning someone mentions a "legend" about a cherokee girl catching a trout and curses, and the name sticks. I have never heard something so dumb in my life, the name Chattooga has been accurately translated to "we crossed here" and an ambigous alternate definition of "river of white rocks"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.177.250 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of the name. 
Talk:Chinese folk flute music

message: I'd love to see some sources here!--CodeGeneratR 20:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It may be unclear for the reader what ABABA, AAA, ABC refer to. I assume it's some rhyme pattern, but other readers mayn't be so bright as me. --Montchav 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABABA, AAA, ABC
Talk:History of the Ryukyu Kingdom

message: For the life of me, I can't understand why this article is not included in the Ryukyu Kingdom article.  Both are relatively short, and there is a history section in the other article.  I really think merger makes sense. Unschool 00:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be merged 

message: The "Ryukyu Kingdom" article describes a specific period of history of the Ryukyu Islands, and thus it would seem that the most useful information contained in "History of the Ryukyu Kingdom", i.e. the general ethnic information considering origins and identity of Uchinanchu people, would be out of place in "Ryukyu Kingdom".  Perhaps the articles "History of the Ryukyu Kingdom" and "Ryukyu Kingdom" should be merged into "Ryukyuan History", which itself could use some elaboration?  Turly-burly 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Ryukyu History, not with Ryukyu Kingdom 

message: The external link noted as the "best" link for this history is hardly the best link, as it is primarily history from the Chinese perspective and lacks a large amount of important information -- that is, most of the specifics of the region's history -- available at other external links provided (and, indeed, available in Wikipedia itself).  Turly-burly 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Comment
Talk:Suzi Simpson

message: I think we should stick to using the Template:Infobox Playboy Playmate template for playmates. It is specific to playmates and has extra boxes for the Playmate of the Year and the preceding and succeeding Playmate of the Month. It doesn't have eye colour or hair colour which is included in the Template:Female adult bio template but these could be added easily. Jester2001 20:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Playboy Playmate/Female adult bio Template