lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Rekursiv

message: I am going to delete the link to . because the page states:
"In 1996, I found a strange set of boards in a surplus store in Lakewood, Colorado. At the time, it appeared to me that they were from a Linn Rekursiv computer, made by Linn Smart Computing of Glasgow, Scotland. I purchased them, and they wound up stored in a relative's basement until I dug them out in July 2003. It is now apparent that they are not in fact from a Rekursiv, so I'm still looking for a Rekursiv, software, or documentation."
So obviously the linked page does not contain any information about Rekursiv, hence it is irrelevant for this article. It lists some references, but they can be included in this article if they are useful. Adrianwn (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the author of that web page may have been mistaken in his belief that he was in possession of a set of Rekursiv boards, but nevertheless, he has still written a web page entitled "The Linn Rekursiv Object-Oriented Computer" and compiled a list of references to said computer. Frankly, I don't understand how this list could be considered "irrelevant" to a WP article on the same subject! Letdorf (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page does not contain any information about the subject, just a plain list of references. If this list was annotated, a link to it would be worth considering; however, no information about the references is given. If you think they are relevant, you are very welcome to add some or all of them to this article. Adrianwn (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to irrelevant page 

message: While not impossible, I find that hard to believe, and didn't see the citation to support this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.193.182.33 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  80MB in the mid eighties for an evaluation board?
Talk:Matador (Los Fabulosos Cadillacs song)

message: A removed a bit about the meaning of the song. It is clearly not about a military leader.
Some of the lyrics go: "I don't need to fear, my words are bullets, bullets of peace, bullets of justice. I'm the voice of those who were shut up for no reason" That ain't a military leader, it is more like a hero of the common people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.226.122.248  (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This song is clearly listed everywhere as simply "Matador". Vevo Store to which that official website links 
Also, while "rock, Latin Rock, Rock en Español" as genres generally redundant on the very least (as a personal addendum, I don't believe that "rock en español" means any objective thing), this particular song is very, very removed from rock sound. I know genre classifications are subjective and all, but a song where the most prominent instrumental sounds is a batucada ensemble and a horn section is not precisely something encompassed by "rock". 
201.190.31.0 (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Title 

message: The intro of the song by the Argentinean band the Fabulous Cadillac in 1994 was stolen from the intro of Paul Simon song The Obvious Child in 1990
Listen Simon song first then TFC song after. 190.143.251.78 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement
Talk:Rheic Ocean

message: I removed a sentence taken (with deletions) uncredited from the article "Origin of the Rheic Ocean: Rifting along a Neoproterozoic suture?" in Geology; May 2006; v. 34; no. 5; p. 325–328; doi: 10.1130/G22068.1.  This will upset people that I "deleted content" from Wikipedia, which I am told should not be done.  But taking copy written text without credit or permission is theft.  So I don't find more uncredited text and delete it I will not edit or read this article.  Wikipedia is thus far disappointing in many ways.  (Amaltheus (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Image one looks... for lack of a better term, German. Seems like the translation didn't work. Aiden3.14152654 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image translation issues
Talk:Kingdom of Elleore

message: Please allow me some time to complete this article.  I intend to do this page to the wikipedia standards of excellence, I just have not had the time to complete it.  I have additional sources that I will be using as well.  All I ask for is some time.
:I concur. There should be no page merge until this article is brought up to an acceptable standard - then we can merge Elleore into it if need be. The island itself has no particular significance beyond that which it enjoys via its micronation association - which, having been in place since the 1940s, make it one of the longest-lived micronations ever. --Gene_poole 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the only significant thing about the Island is the Kingdom (and he Island page is almost non-existent) shouldn't we do both as one page and have one be a redirect to the other ..? lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ  12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. My previous comments were posted before I realised there was almost no content in the island article. Anything that's there but not here should be copied across, then Elleore redirected to Kingdom of Elleore. --Gene_poole 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Much better a well rounded article .. lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ  14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This article should be expanded, to be more comprehensive in its coverage. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand
Talk:Lake Algonquin

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Glacial Lake Duluth - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 04:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The move has been carried out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The article says the surface "water level was at 605 feet (184 m) above sea level, creating a single body of water". This needs some more precision; is it above the sea level at the time or does it mean to say the lake shorelines at that time correspond roughly to an elevation of 605 ft above the present-day sea level? The levels of both land formations and sea were rising rapidly towards the end of the glaciation and (especially land rebound) for millennia after the ice had pulled back. I honestly doubt that this prehistoric lake stood 200 m above the Atlantic sea level at the time when the ice front was immediately to its north, the entire basin and the shield to the north of it would have become very depressed during the many thousand of years of glaciation and in any case elevations were shifting fast at that time, but the data need to be more clear as to what they really mean. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lake elevation 

message: Is this different from Lake Algonquin (New York)? If so, should that be a tag? Trilotat (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They are different ...this lake no longer exists .--Moxy 🍁 02:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different from [[Lake Algonquin (New York)]]? 

message: This error is being propagated naihely throughout academia. Lake Algonquin existed between ~14600-13800 cal.YBP. 149.20.180.31 (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiocarbon years gratuitously conflated with calendar years.
Talk:Epeiric sea

message: Though it pained me to do it, I deleted much of the added material after the first couple of paragraphs; this is not an example of personal bias, but it simply had little or no relevance to the topic, discussing as it did ancient seafloor deposits and areas of the American interior that might be threatened by sea level rise.  Perhaps it can be incorporated into the article some way, but in my op, not as it was then presented.  Again, I meant no offense by this.Erimus (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

message: I've suggested the merge, as the two articles cover precisely the same topic. The title "epeiric sea" has only the advantage of an adjective formed from Greek that is impenetrable to the average Wikipedia reader.--Wetman (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - see discussion at Talk:Inland sea (geology)#Merge from Epeiric sea. Vsmith (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge: [[Inland sea (geology)]]
File talk:Income-curve-$10k.png

message: This file has been corrected, and cleaned as asked for in 
I could not upload a PNG to a JPG file, so a new version could not be created on the same page....
Admins Please correct the licensing CyberoidX 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was confused about the licensing, THIS image has been created by me, and it is a modification of the file mentioned above, which was under GFDL. I hope i can release a derivative of a GFDL under FAL.
This image is a good image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.91.92.98 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

message: As a histogram the last two bars really should be 5x wider and 5x shorter than what they are atm. 118.90.35.169 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Where is this from? 158.121.225.45 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed
Talk:Bloodstopping

message: this article could probably do with expansion of several other magic practices, like fire drawing, curing the thrush, and so on. Whateley23 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm amazed this is called an American practice in general, as it's definitely come to the States from Europe. There's a tradition of it in Finnish folk healing all right (verenseisautus, "making blood stop"). Here's the article on the Finnish Wikipedia: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verenseisautus 
I've also heard of it having been practiced in Germany. This article definitely needs the attention of someone who's more well-versed in Finnish (and other old European) folk healing than I am, though.--Snowgrouse (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally an European practice
Talk:Daniel V. Gallery

message: Gallery makes no hint that any such thing happened. In fact, he said that he was quite open about his intentions before the capture and none of his superiors protested. Rsduhamel (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dressing-down by Admiral King 
Talk:Newark Supergroup

message: Inexpertly, many of the magmatic provinces, associated with the rifting breakup of Pangea c.260-200Ma, occurred at the foothills of mountains uplifted, during the prior assembly of Pangea.  For example, the Urals were uplifted c.300-250Ma by the collision of Baltica and Siberia; then the Siberian traps eruptions occurred along the Siberian foothills of those very mountains.  Likewise, the Appalachians were uplifted during the collision of North America and Gondwana c.350-250Ma; then the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province erupted, along the same suture.  Ipso facto, plates join & rift along similar axes (?).66.235.38.214 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've been working on the Falling Creek Formation, which led me to create the Taylorsville Basin and I noticed that when I linked 'Newark Supergroup' it redirected to 'Newark Group'. This entry for Newark in the USGS GEOLEX database shows that the Group was renamed to Supergroup some time ago and on looking through GoogleScholar I notice that there is virtually no usage of 'Group' after the 1970s. I therefore propose that this article is renamed to 'Newark Supergroup' as I believe that is unequivocally current usage. Mikenorton (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Supergroup 
Talk:Sundance Sea

message: any relation to the Sundance Channel? 204.52.215.107 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:National Transgender Advocacy Coalition

message: Given the number of resources that cite NTAC, I think a Speedy Deletion is inappropriate.  An AFD, perhaps, but not a speedy. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion request 
Talk:Zuñi sequence

message: The Zuni marine transgression is associated with the [| Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum] c.55Ma, which may be associated with the final rifting of North America from Europe, and the opening up of the then-young North Atlantic.  Also,  newborn sea floor is hot, thin, and buoyant; a pulse of sea-floor spreading c.55Ma, associated with rifting in the North Atlantic, could have (geologically) quickly created a stretch of shallow seafloor, which would have pushed oceans up onto continents.  This article might be improved, by referencing those facts. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add this information in.--134.129.140.171 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Cyclostratigraphy

message: The content of the article is all relevant to the subject. However, it skims over the explanations of orbital cycles and does not connect them to cyclostratigraphy through examples or added detail. The information is presented in clear language but does not inform the reader of the science behind cyclostratigraphy. Cyclostratigraphy is explained in a general context, but more detail should be provided. Also, there are seven sources in the references section, but only two are referenced in the article. It is also worth noting that four of the seven sources are in French. Leah.I.H. (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Review
Category talk:Collections of the National Gallery of Art

message: Should we move it to Collections of the National Gallery of Art, Washington ?
Or something like that? --Rajah 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, perhaps change "collections" to "collection"? Entries are individual works, right? Not collections. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of this category

message: This is the first time I see / work with such a list and I wonder: What is the reason that artworks that are in the collection, but not described on Wikipedia (yet!) are not listed? Why can't those be listed, or (at least) be linked to the suitable NGoA sub-website? I try to understand the system in place.. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible artworks?
Talk:Staphisagria macrosperma

message: Why would you sow the seeds if the plant is extremely toxic from flower to root? $0.02?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.55.150 (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plants are not just grown for food. Other purposes could be for decoration, scientific research, pharmaceuticals, perhaps herbal remedies in diluted quantities. Dl2000 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Aymestry Limestone

message: This unit is now known as the Aymestry Limestone Formation , so I will move the page to that title and merge in Aymestry Formation while I'm at it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the village is Aymestrey, does the limestone have one or two e's? Le Deluge (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the one, according to the BGS - been used with that spelling in geology since at least 1840. A search on Google Scholar gives just 15 results for Aymestrey Limestone compared to 412 with Aymestry Limestone. Mikenorton (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, it's not unique in preserving an old spelling but I think we can take the BGS as definitive. It was worth a question though. Le Deluge (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism

message: At Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Listing_of_I_Love_New_York 5, we are discussing the proper listing of , which is the famous first use of the  as a logograph for the word love, leading to ubiquitous use of I ... in marketing materials worldwide. It got listed as a specific work of visual arts. I want to make sure that no one has a problem with moving it from specific works of art. If anyone has an opinion, drop a note there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper [[WP:VA]] listing
Talk:Appalachia (landmass)

message: I have called question on this claim as I've never heard this argument on any scientific papers on the dinosaurs of Appalachia, the claim was intially unreferenced. It appears to be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research policy. The reason that is primarily given for the lack of Appalachian dinosaurs is that there was little sediment input into the eastern half of the western interior seaway due to a largely flat topograpy in comparison to Laramidia, meaning that most coastal sediments were marine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having gained access to the paper, it says that 100-200 metres of cretaceous cover in New-England-Maine have been removed, it doesn't suggest that this makes up half of the deposit, nor does it state the nature of the cover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice age destroyed half of Appalachia's dinosaur deposits claim

message: The current name seems a bit esoteric for most readers. How about Appalachia (landmass) or Appalachia (Mesozoic landmass) ? FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd do the move, but I somehow don't get the move option? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the move option isn't visible the means the page is move protected, which indeed it is so you will have to make a request to remove it which I'm sure will be accepted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Portal talk:Fish/Quiz

message: What a novel and entertaining idea!  Hopefully I can implement this into another portal or two soon. I'm sure I'll be back to ask a few questions. Who started this up? :) Joe I 04:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was conceived, designed and created by Melanochromis.  --Jnpet 07:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. It was me. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to help you set up this kind of quiz for other portals. --Melanochromis 02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great

message: I only count one point for jnpet for this tournament. Did I miss something? FireFly5 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind, I now see that (s)he just didn't sign his/her post. Silly me! FireFly5 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point miscount? 

message: I answered a question correctly, but in the box, I see only a blank space. What happened? I see it as of:  Jourdy288 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. You can put in a new question. bibliomaniac15 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is my point? 

message: I just came across this page, and I enjoyed reading the questions and various answers, but I noticed that the Fish Quiz seems to have come to a halt. It seems like a fun page. I'm wondering if the rules could be changed so that anyone can pose a question. That would mean that even non-experts could formulate a question based on their reading. It would encourage reading of fish articles on Wikipedia. Then even non-experts might feel they could find an answer to some of the questions in Wikipedia fish articles. Perhaps 1 point could be given to the writer of a good question and 1 point to the person who correctly answers it. Corinne (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something we did way back in the day, but like you said we all kinda became inactive. Part of the privilege of answering the question is coming up with the next question, so I'm not sure how that rule change would affect that. Maybe put a time limit? But it's always been the rule that the answer to the question should be on Wikipedia, so anyone can participate anyway. bibliomaniac15 07:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has happened to the Fish Quiz?
Talk:WWBA

message: EDITING CHANGE BY:
205.201.146.69 (Talk) (1,780 bytes) (added the Mark Larsen information, and took out the comment about the station being a "low-power" station. That is another radio station upset by our recent success.)
205.201.146.69,
Why don't you add some text or a link about the station's ratings increase?  I haven't read anything online about it. I think it would be useful to include here as the market's talk giant, in terms of signal, always gets all the attention and, like its owner, certainly receives highly favorable write-ups here in Wiki land.
Don1962 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Ottoman destroyer Muavenet-i Milliye

message: Please see Talk:World War I naval ships of Turkey for a merger suggestion. DenizTC 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Romualdo Formation

message: It appears this formation has been upgraded to a group, and that the article should therefore be moved, and the article revised. I did such a move, but it was reverted for unclear reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The formation still is widely known as a formation. One article about paleontology used the name "Santana Group", but the paleontologists are not an authority on the elevations from formations to groups, just like geologists are not an authority on the physiology of spinosaurids. We need a proper reference, at least a couple giving the importance of these units, to geologists who redefined this important formation to a group. And, as Wikipedia works, other geologists who follow that new definition. On top of that, the implications this has on the other formations, especially Crato. Lastly you didn't update anything else than the name and title, so the whole rest of the article became a mismatch. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This 2018 publication, now linked as further reading in the articles listed below, but needs to be incorporated as bibliography later, uses indeed "Santana Group", so the idea there should be an article about that is valid. But then that article should reflect the full stratigraphy of that group. What I see as a better option is renaming this article Romualdo Formation, as it is the former "Romualdo Member" where (most of) these fossils were found, create a new, separate article about the Santana Group that describes the stratigraphic and lateral variations of the various formations (now: Crato Formation, Ipubi Formation and Romualdo Formation). Then the question what the "Araripe Group" represents; is it what is now the Santana Group, or did/does it include more, like I started at the Araripe Basin, where the Arajara Formation (still a formation? now a member? lateral equivalent to other formations?), the Araripina Formation (idem) and Barbalha Fm./Rio da Batateira Fms (different names used over time) are mentioned in stratigraphic analyses of 1992, 2013 and up to 2017 even. The Exu Formation also has an article, does that still exist, or is it now considered part of another formation? A simple rename without looking at the implications/consequences is not the solution and will only increase confusion, where it should do the opposite. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really make sense to rename this into a completely different subject, what should instead be done is that the info about the Romualdo Formation should be moved to that article, and cut from here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Santana Group 

message: Maybe my eyes accidentally skipped over it while reading, but how come there are so many Pterosaur fossils? Not once have I seen so many different species from the same formation. Is there an explanation for this, or is it just a coincidence? Cryolophosaurus Ellioti5858 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abundance of Pterosaurs?