lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pick Up

message: *This page used to redirect to Shide, but I changed it to redirect to Dial 'M' For Monkey (album) ("Pick Up" is a song title from that album) and I left no mention of Shide because I could not figure out why this page redirected there in the first place.  If someone else knows why, please turn this page into a disambiguation page, but include the link to Dial 'M' For Monkey (album).--Hraefen Talk 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Mark (designation)

message: I read somewhere that the US doesn't use the "mark system" in identifying models. Instead, they hold a contest among arms companies to submit a new weapon and they are given IDs "M1", "M2" etc.. I'm skeptical of this, so is this true? That would mean that the "M16" was the 16th model, for example, submitted in a contest for a new assault rifle when it was introduced. --Philip Laurence 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  For an authoritative source, see MIL-STD-1464A, Army Nomenclature System, May 1987, Section 5.1.3.2 (page 9): "Type classified (M).  The letter M, used as a prefix, shall designate an item that has been type classified".  The US military does sometimes use "Mark" as a revision designation, e.g, Mark 48 torpedo, but the "M" prefix used for things like M16 rifle and M60 tank, doesn't officially stand for anything.  I've most often heard it supposed as an abbreviation for "military", but that's unreliable folklore at best.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: While the Mark / Mod system is not used throughout the entire US Military, the system is still in active use in the US Navy.  I'll add some information on it to the article page under the usage section.  I don't have time to do anything extensive, but I'll put in some links so at least we can find the information.Bosef1 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the mark system not used by the us? 

message: A project is underway to provide disambiguation pages for Mark I, Mark II, Mark III, etc, all the way up to whatever makes sense for a dab page. Some pages are already finished, others are being worked on, with moves and redirects taking care of articles that are sitting on the proposed dab page. Some pages will be built from scratch. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark disambiguation pages 

message: What is the preferred style, (eg.) Blemheim Mark Is or Blenheims Mark I? MrFlibble (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Postpositive. MrFlibble (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This has also been brought up on the Blenheim page, but "Blenheims Mark I" seems to me to be a totally unnecessary piece of affectation. What sounds "natural" is generally better than what sounds plain silly. The analogy with (say) "Queens regnant" doesn't really hold water, IMHO. It is the Queens who are plural, and they are incidentally queens in their own right rather than Kings' wives. It is drawing rather a long bow to say that it is the Blenheims that are plural, and they happen to be Mark Is. The name of the aircraft is the Blenheim Mark I, and if it is plural then the "s" goes after the last element. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: From a cursory glance this system seems to be more common in the UK than in the US, especially outside the military. Is this true? If so it should be noted in the article. -- 77.7.167.132 (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this more common in the UK than in the US?
Talk:Doubling echo

message: Doubling Echo and ADT are similar, but very different techniques. ADT is obsolete with the end of reel-to-reel tape recording and was largely exclusive to the Beatles recordings; doubling echo is still a viable recording technique, commonly used in studios then and now. Any merger should be the other way around; anything else would be a disservice. Zephyrad 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Merge" - No!!!

message: If this article must be merged, make it with an anchor tag, specifically pointing to a section about doubling echo; otherwise, leave it alone. Zephyrad 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? From your previous comment about not merging you made points about it being used in studios today and that the Beatles used it too, neither of these factoids are in the article itself.  Perhaps a few sourced edits are in order? Until then I vote merge. Radagast83 08:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Merge" - Again, no!!!
Talk:Slim jim (lock pick)

message: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the ablility to set off an airbag with a slim jim is not possible:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/slim.htm
:Reading that document, it's clear that the NHTSA has done little more but read the claims and evaluated them as wanting -- a conclusion most people would make without much help.  The only claims of impossibility reported by the NHTSA are essentially hear-say on their part:  there is no evidence whatsoever that NHTSA has done any actual experimental work, design analysis etc, and NHTSA cites no documentation from the manufacturers they claim to have contacted.  Note that someone has added a sentence about Mythbusters;  if it is true that MB has aired a test on this claim, it would stand has a far better reference than the above, given Mythbusters' undeniable credibility.  mdf 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbags 

message: I locked myself out of my car today and was able to improvise a Slim Jim using the metal strip from a hanging file folder. I found out about it here http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=SLIM%20JIM
If someone feels it would be a useful addition to the article feel free to mention the improvised technique.  It may be helpful when you're stuck at work or in a locality that does not allow the sale of Slim Jims.
Also when using a Slim Jim, you should never try to unlock the car from the driver's side because if you damage something, you'll have to deal with it every day rather than just having to deal with it when you have a passenger.
Stonent 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On one occasion I managed to lock both sets of keys in a 1979 Ford Capri right outside my flat, which was deeply embarrassing.  The AA man opened it quicker than I could manage with a key.  However, when I managed to lock my keys inside a 2008 Skoda Roomster, the RAC bod said that due to the fitment of deadlocks to most modern cars, the slim jim no longer worked.  Fortunately I had declined to fork out extra cash for electric rear windows, so he was able to introduce a piece of stiff wire past the door seal, open the rear window and hook out the keys from the boot (I had the back seats out to accommodate a bike).  He said the only alternative would have been to break a window. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvised Slim Jim 

message: I read the article and don't see any connection or barely a mention of Slim Jim; certainly nothing about how they are used to open a door.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwin74 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honolulu Advertiser reference 
Talk:Alexandra Breckenridge

message: I have replaced "1982" in the infobox and "" in the lead with the "Birth based on age as of date" template. The template is better for a couple of reasons.
*1982 may or may not be correct. As the template's output shows, she could have been born in 1981 or 1982.
*"" is less specific than the template's output.
Eddie Blick (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year 

message: There is a picture from her from LOOK Talent agency, where she did some modeling. Her date of birth is stated as 05-15-1982 as is it here also (found via google). Listed source site behindthevoiceacters.com also stated May 15, but no year. Any more information on her birth date? Saemikneu (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth
Talk:Greenfield project

message: I oppose the proposed merger.  "Greenfield project" and "greenfield land" are two fairly distinct concepts, and seem to deserve their own entry.  It may be possible to combine them as instances of the concept "greenfield", but that seens a little to general to me. -- kaosfere 15:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have removed the sections to put this more in line with convention for merge/move/delete debates. Garrie 04:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: The page supposes this development line: (1) programmers use an analogy with realworld architecture/engineering (some projects start on 'greenfield') to describe their new/fromscratch projects. Later, (2) realworld architects and engineers start applying a phrase, 'greenfield project', invented by the programmers in an analogy to the physical domain, which the programmers thought of first. Is this supported by any documents? Or should it be rewritten not to imply this dependence of the engineers on the programmers for (relatively straightforward, one might think) terms in their domain?--69.230.186.108 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the history accurate?
Talk:Teat-fire cartridge

message: Anyone object if I move this page to the above title, since there's only one diameter associated with this design?  That'll put it more in-line with other articles, and thus easier to find. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably ok. Do we have an refs that call it that? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to .32 Teat-fire cartridge?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Army.ca

message: Michael Dorosh has just proven the reason why he was banned from Army.ca. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.]The Army.ca site can stand on it's own credentials. It has over 10,000 Regular and Reserve force members, from various nations, as well as many retired military and civilian members and guests. It has recieved official sanction from the Canadian Forces as the site to refer to for questions pertaining to the CF. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloggins (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 July 2006  (UTC)
:And your ad hominem attacks on his person aren't helping raise the level of discourse any. Regardless of what your personal opinion of Mr. Dorosh is, he has as much right as anyone (including you) to bring any article up for deletion debate here. If his argument is without merit, then it'll be dismissed ("closed as keep") and everyone can go about their business. I would suggest that you focus your attentions on the discussion at hand, and answering the very real questions about verifiability and sources for the article, as mentioned on the actual discussion page. -- nae'blis 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion on the Project Page goes into the ban and the reasons why this action is neither petulant nor vicious. I've talked to the owner of army.ca this morning via email and he understands the criteria for notability may not be met.  However, if it can be demonstrated that people using the site as a reference is in itself an indicator of notability, that will benefit not just army.ca but the inclusion on Wikipedia of many other military websites that at present fail to meet the notability standards. Thanks for your contribution bloggins, I look forward to your constructive participation in the debate.Michael Dorosh 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes
Talk:Ahmed El Sakka

message: ahmed el sakka a7san momasil fl cinema al masria ana bahebak ta7n i love uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.36.88 (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello 
Talk:Frank Tanana

message: Since Tanana graduated from Detroit Catholic Central High School, I had assumed he was raised Catholic. Perhaps it was a "re-conversion"? Or maybe it was a "born-again" experience? I'm curious. --Habap 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I remember hearing while Tanana was still playing that he had become what we call a "born-again" Christian, and that's what they're referring to here. I won't change it because I don't know for sure, but I'm almost 100 percent sure that's what it is. On a side note, that 1987 shutout he pitched was one of the most remarkable feats I ever saw, right up there with sore-armed Fernando Valenzuela's 1990 no-hitter. Completely jerked the Blue Jays' chains all day long... Jsc1973 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion
Portal talk:India/DYK

message: *...that the Peshwa general Chimnaji Appa built the Vajreshwari temple to thank the goddess Vajreshwari for the conquest of the Bassein Fort in 1739? (Appeared on 29 Dec 2007 as DYK) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold and adding it.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating [[Vajreshwari temple]] 

message: This page (Portal:India/DYK) is transcluded in the Portal:India page, under the header "Did you know...".
That section can easily hold upto 20 DYKs. If we do not leave about 20 DYKs in this page, then that section will show empty space below the DYKs, like how it showing now (as of today, 22nd Feb 2008).
Therfore, I propose, we leave 20 DYKs in this page, before archiving. Any thoughts/suggestions? - KNM  Talk 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of entries
Talk:Khaibar-1

message: There's been some copyright violations in this article, please see  for precedence. --193.217.52.226 15:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be merged. We don't know if Khaibar-1 is a Fajr-5 or Fajr-6 or something completely else. If it was Fajr-5, it could be a modified version. --Jambalaya 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

message: "....and the Jews of Khaybar being reduced to serfdom under their Muslim conquerors." People this is an encyclopedia, can you please provide the source refering to the Jews as being reduced to serfdom. Thank you.
:I didn't add that bit of information, but it was probably referenced from the Battle_of_Khaybar article here.  Also, can you please sign your edits?  Jp media 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide sources 
Talk:Floyd Dixon

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:List of Strangers with Candy characters

message: I added a spoiler warning! I started reading the descriptions and I haven't seen every episode yet, and one of the plot details was spoiled for me. =( Fairy Incognito 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: I notice the article's header refers to this page as describing the characters from the series. At the same time, there's numerous references to the movie for characters who are in both the series and the movie. However, I don't see Megawatti anywhere. Does anyone agree that this page should be changed to include movie characters also? Jkoudys 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie References
Talk:Lady Vengeance

message: "Geum-ja" is the characters first name. Shouldn't she be referred to throughout the synopsis as "Lee"? Gram 13:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name in synopsis

message: I had reverted an edit by an user who didn't log in to Wikipedia. This is likely a bad faith edit. Pedro Lucas Silva (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely bad faith edit
Talk:MacNeill Secondary School

message: I agree, that this site looks like a promo for the school.  It also looks like some students wrote it during there spare time.  It needs to be fixed and conformed more to the wikipedia structure standards. Dgiraffes (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec 4, 2008 

message: I'm calling this a stub article because as of today it is in need of cleanup and formatting. I would suggest getting rid of the bell schedule as well.  PKT (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 
Talk:Gorlice–Tarnów offensive

message: The Orbat section includes the Austro-Hungarian II and III Armies, whereas Stone (1975) (my only authoritative source) only lists the AH IV Army. Thus should the other two AH armies be deleted from the Orbat section? They’re also not mentioned elsewhere. Of course, if the armies go, so must their commanders, from the too-long list of Central Powers’ commanders.  --Wally Tharg (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Austro-Hungarian II and III Armies be deleted? 

message: There’s a separate article on the Battle of Dunajetz that covers much of the same material, but not so well, and which contains several mistakes.  (This article is clearly the better of the two.)  This is a call to merge the good parts of the Dunajetz article with this one, as a subsection, and to discard the rest.  Any thoughts?  --Wally Tharg (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to merge with [[Battle of Dunajetz]] 

message: Hello,
I did some minor editing today in "background" and "driving onwards".
Hope they're ok and of a sufficient quality. Just wanted to let you guys know, since I'm not a regular here!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.136.77 (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tweaks 

message: Strength
219,000 at start of offensive; up to 50,000 reinforcements[1]
Casualties and losses
2 May – 22 June:
Total: ~350,000
250,000 captured
~100,000 killed and wounded[4]
These number don't add up. Casualties are higher than initial strength+reinforcements, heh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.112.90 (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math
Talk:South of the Border (Robbie Williams song)

message: I don't see this article developing from a stub; if it's a possible search term then a redirect to a larger page might be better...why not merge into the article on the album? -- ben 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Polish style pickled cucumber

message: Have thought it over and just want to say this "style" of pickle has no unique nationality. Its method of preparation is found in many European countries' cuisines. The title is inappropriate. Dr. Dan 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nationality" of this Pickle

message: I have merged "Polish-style pickled cucumber" into "Pickled Cucumber". I didn't realize that it had previously been something else, and thus, saw no reason why this food wouldn't fit under "pickled cucumber" -- since that is what it is, at base. The entry wasn't clear as to whether vinegar was used, although I suspected that might be the difference between it and other (what I call) "pickles". 
I will update the entry in Pickled Cucumber to emphasize it's fresher, BRINE-only status. It is a difficult subject because there are so many slangs and overlapping of terms.In US stores, anyway,  Kosher pickles aren't kosher, just made "New York Deli-style" and Polish style pickles really aren't, and Gherkins aren't really made with the plant Cucumis anguria. And in Britain, apparently, pickles are just any condiments, unless it is "a jar of pickles" in which case it tends to be a pickled cucumber.  Utopienne 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pickle-naming  discussion

message: Which leads me to another question, which should probably be reposted in Wiki:food and drink somewhere better than this. However, how different does a dish have to be to qualify for an entry? I make Shepard's Pie all the time, with crust, meat (no wine, just tomatoes), corn/veggie layer, potatoes. But some people claim that something as far different as just meat (with rich sauce) with mashed yams on top is also Shepard's pie? How will we deal with this... distance? Food is necessarily a fluid, evolving world, and there aren't really "experts" so much as in other fields. What counts as citations? etc. Utopienne 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How different is too different?
Talk:Battle of Mulhouse

message: Hello editors,
one question: Why is this considered a German victory? According to the article, the French took Mulhouse and controlled Upper Alsace before making a strategic retreat. Shouldn't it be considered a "French Tactical Victory" then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.134.75.13 (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it was because the French got booted out.Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Found a few more details in sources I didn't possess during the rewrite, including a few more details about casualties, Infobox not yet amended. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE, casualties 

message: do you read these articles or skim the lead? You're creating a lot of disputed edits for the sake of questionable changes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the entirety of the article before making that change. It seems to me that the narrative shows a German victory for the first phase and a French victory for the second phase. The French army withdrew as a consequence of other battles elsewhere, in order to reposition. Locally the battle of Mulhouse was a French victory. And I realize I was not the only one who was wondering that. I don't think that "German victory" is supported by the article. The British army withdrew at Mons following the withdrawal of the French army at Charleroi, so I guess that Mons is a British defeat? LaHire07 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That suggests that you are indulging in OR. Wiki isn't a source and the RS are. It would be better to mention it here and ask editors to check the RS to clarify if necessary. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits
Talk:KVET-FM

message: Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:
#WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information."  As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.  
#As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced. 
# WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article. 
#Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable.  Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material