lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Leah Miller

message: on the cardinal carter schoool for the arts page on wikipedia, it states leah miller went to its school, but im not she where she graduated.??? 142.46.7.18 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ccaa

message: If this helps, she's maybe starring in Busgirl (2006). Blond/black hair, I'm not sure, check here:  Hoverfish Talk 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability note 

message: Hi, I was wondering about the relevance of the youtube video.  It only serves to bring down her standing in the article because it makes her appear clumsy.71.135.83.51 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube Video
Talk:Rock Kills Kid

message: Could u label them progressive rock?
you could. but y would you?
See their myspace page for the genres alternative rock and electronica... btw, I'm not too sure about the art punk, shouldn't that need citations? Matt 2601 atl (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what a band claims to be on myspace should necissarily be taken seriously. For instance The Aquabats claim to be "Grindcore / Afro-beat / 2-step" on their myspace page. Take a look at the electronica article to see if Rock Kills Kid seems to fit. It doesn't from what I know of their music, which admittedly isn't a whole lot. Thanks Zytsef (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre
Talk:Livia

message: The "Personality" section sounds like someone uploaded a section of their high school essay. Should be rewritten entirely. 64.231.233.233 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personality" 

message: "Historical picture in the direction of the vineyards by the sea between Prosecco and Barcola where the Empress' favorite wine was grown"
Someone liked this picture, but it's pointless and unencyclopedic. Why a WW1-era picture that doesn't even show whatever it is that has at most a tangential relation to a 2,000 year old subject? 2A02:AA1:162A:8A57:E8CC:2CA8:8253:23F6 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical picture, etc.
Talk:National Reconnaissance Office

message: Since the article does not contain criticism section, I would like to propose that it be presented in a more neutral form, starting with the adoption in a country such as the United States of a new three-stage NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) licensing scheme for commercial remote sensing systems, breaking down the problems in the following form:
1. Describe the risks of mass surveillance of private orbital constellations, with unlimited resolution of remote sensing systems due to the lack of restrictions of the new NOAA licensing system and having entered into so-called contracts with NRO. That is, list in the article such companies as HawkEye 360, Capella Space etc in a complete list.
2. Give examples of commercial companies affected as a result of the publication of trade secrets, for example, the publication of data on the filling of oil tanks in Singapore.
3. Give more specific examples, for example, in the case of HawkEye 360, which entered into a contract with NRO, which leads to the killing of civilians by overcoming GNSS electronic warfare systems. That is, the use of a commercial data supply channel for targeting missiles of states that are members of military alliances with the United States (NATO, San Francisco System) or candidate countries in existing theaters of military operations. 95.31.1.150 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section
Talk:Sensor fusion

message: Sensor fusion is completely different to multimodal integration, though to a casual observer they may seem similar. One is human perception, the other primarily robotic perception from what I can gather (not my field I'm afraid!). Sparkleyone 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Sensor fusion / Sensor Data fusion - is the computer driven fusion of disparate data into knowledge.  
This includes:
Simple fusion of data from multiple sensors over an area to generate a common set of readings for an area. 
complex fusion of multiple sensor to generate and identify "items" in the sensed area as being something.
--YaZug 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  agreed 

message: What is this link : http://www.rl.af.mil/tech/programs/asf?
Majorkell 18:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link broken 

message: A few paper citations have been missed here. For example, the intro paragraph is *very* familiar to (B.V. Dasarathy, Dynetics, Inc)
Also, the JDL Model of data fusion paper should be cited in the levels section - F.E. White, Managing data fusion system in joint and coalition
warfare, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Data
Fusion, Malvern, UK, 1998, pp. 49–52.
I don't know enough about the topic to know if these proposed citations are the 'original' papers that the respective ideas come from, so I am hesitant to put these in the article w/o verifying that first. 
24.127.43.175 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations?  

message: In the section on Applications, source twelve is titled "Flight-Test Evaluation of Sensor Fusion Algorithms for Attitude Estimation" from an IEEE journal. The text that cites this source talks about figuring out "altitude." While altitude can most likely be determined using sensor fusion of GPS and an INS, the attitude (Roll/Pitch/Yaw) is much easier and is what the cited source is discussing.
The section on Centralized versus decentralized claims that "multiple combinations of centralized and decentralized systems exist." Are there examples of varying levels of centralization in the sources listed for this article? This statement is ambiguous. 
What are the "Levels" used for? Who uses them? The US military? Research groups? It's not clear from the article text what the context for levels 0-5 are. Andrewkaster (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Ideas 

message: This URL for example https://web.archive.org/web/20120323133400/http://ricquebourg.iut-amiens.fr/these/fusion_2006/Papers/394.pdf 92.24.188.96 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blasch Sensor User Mission paper with dead link is available from Archive org
Talk:Double cross (betrayal)

message: Ugh. On the Jonathan Swift page the possibility that he inspired the term double cross is debunked as a fake etymology, but here it is stated as fact. Anyone have any idea which is correct? 87.113.78.63 07:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've flagged this as disputed accuracy.  I have found the original meaning, however, having finished the entry, and even hit "Preview", the power went out before I hit "Save" (grumble).  81.104.165.184 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought it had some religious originations. Maybe I'm wrong. Trevor GH5 05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Double cross (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 12:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Anne Garrels

message: The following has been repeatedly removed from the article by various anonymous IP's:
:On November 10, 2004, [Garrels] was the reporter who first reported information, soon refuted, that the Marines had found a "store of sarin nerve gas" during the attack 
The URL referenced includes a link to the retraction, so the statement seems strongly sourced to me.  I'm honestly tired of reverting the removals, though.  Is this fact notable enough to bother? --TreyHarris 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not.  In any case, the wording is rather misleading.  If the fact is restored, it ought to be phrased something like: "On November 10, 2004, Garrels was the first to report that the Marines had found packages that were initially suspected to contain the nerve gas sarin.  The packages were later determined to be testing kits for the presence of sarin."  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarin gas story 

message: The paragraph removed by Jimbo in this diff seems relatively well-sourced to me.  The claims made in it all seem to be also made (and, I think, sourced) in the article on J. Vinton Lawrence himself, and I don't see anyone removing them there.  However, I've put in a version which I believe and hope will be completely noncontroversial for now, until someone lets me know exactly what the unsourced facts in the old version were.  Unless there's a claim that the Vint Lawrence she's married to actually isn't J. Vinton Lawrence?-Polotet 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Jimbo indicated that the concern was lack of sourcing for the claims about her husband within the article, I have readded the information with sources.-Polotet 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources show that (1) Garrels is married to a "Vint Lawrence" and (2) that somebody called Vint Lawernce worked for the CIA. Could you provide a source to link the two names to the same person? Andreww 07:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly is the objection to the former version of this article?

message: Was she a smoker? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death from lung cancer 

message: My understanding from ABC News colleagues is Anne had to leave Russia after a car accident in which she hit and killed a Russian. Intuitive1 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Departure from Russia
Talk:The Ultra-Violence

message: Anyone know if the album/title track name is a reference to A Clockwork Orange? 66.31.174.231 (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: anyone know?

message: Undo merging with main band article? I vote yes.--Vinicius Metal (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Undo Merging
Talk:Frolic Through the Park

message: I noticed that Devil's Metal is separated as a CD bonus track, and while this is true, for consistency... Dehumanization, Silent Killer, and Witches of Knave were also not on the original album. These bonus tracks weren't added until the Archives and Artifacts box set (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_and_Artifacts) remasters of The Ultra-Violence and Frolic Through the Park (which added the Kill as One demo to T.U.V. and was properly separated in it's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultra-Violence). 
So I propose they be separated as such. 2601:405:4900:54B0:1DBD:D98B:A44C:D4BB (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonus tracks not on the original 1988 release.
Talk:French immigration to Puerto Rico

message: Has someone considered to add an article on Haitian migration to Puerto Rico, which has been documented to have been very large towards the end of the Eighteenth Century and Beginning of the Nineteenth Century?
Please tell me what you think, thanks!
Regards,
Anthrop Keen
SamEV 18:36, June 1st, 2007 (EST)
:Europeans fleeing Haiti and the Dominican Republic in large numbers after their independence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.1.37 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Haitian Immigration to Puerto Rico

message: Okupat, you are doing a damn good job!  It's great to have people like you in Wiki.  Tony the Marine 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Thought French Puerto Rican works well....everyone knows that most are descended from other peoples soo....
I thought id be good to change the title name to classify it clearly as a short title as all the puerto rican and the other descendents in the USA and the rest of the american continent....it works....as a European American  for example..sept 2007 (UTC)
*I will not change the title to "French Puerto Rican" because that does not make any sense at all. Puerto Ricans do not reffer to themselves in ethnic terms, they referrer to themselves as Puerto Ricans plain and simple. Ethnic terms is something that is used mainly in the United States. The article clearly is about the "French immigration to Puerto Rico" it's causes and consequences. By the way, the info box looks fine. Tony the Marine 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again Spain21, good to see you are pursuing consensus this time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article

message: A cursory look at the list of French last names suffices for one to realize that some of the surnames listed are not French in origin. For example, Alegre and Alfonso (unless it was Hispanicized in Puerto Rico) are probably Iberian in origin. Alers, Berantier and Bernier could possibly be Catalan — many names in Catalan sound French. Braschi is, if you will, Corsican French, not French French. 68.173.246.248 (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames of French origin
Talk:Antoine Meillet

message: Why doesn't this entry say anything about Meillet's "grammaticalization"? This is often seen as his greatest contribution to historical linguistics. --149.159.3.53 08:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammaticalization concept requested

message: As of this instant the font for the notes is very small, possibly 6-point. However, the autogenerated note numbers are full size, possibly 10 or 12. It does not look professional. I suggest full-size font for the notes. It would look better. There aren't that many notes. Give it some thought, later we will look at what you thought or think.24.61.158.203 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Small font issue
Talk:Jaffar

message: Grah. I just made a major change, so I thought I'd explain it a bit more. I was reading the PoP article, and came here expecting info on the vizier from that game. Then I found a bio for a Fire Emblem character. Then I tried to move the article. But the page already existed. And.. long story short, there is now a disambiguation page for "Jaffar". It only covers fictional characters right now, and it'd be nice to see some expansion. For now.. here it is. --Evan L. Kester 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Lake Naroch offensive

message: The article erroneously stated that according to Russian sources the scale of Russian casualties incurred in the assault was about 150,000, which is in contradiction with facts, the analysis conducted by N. Podorozhniy (Нарочская операция в марте 1916 г., М., 1938, p. 126; it estimated the number of casualties to be at 76,409) and even with the book it referred to (Оськин М. В., Брусиловский прорыв, М., 2010, p. 7; the number is estimated at approximately 80,000). I’ve cleaned this up and changed the numbers to those taken from the sources. Also, I have deleted the mention “of the use of a widely known Russian method of war - human wave” due to the fact that the human wave attack is apparently not a traditional Russian infantry tactic and was applied by the Germans in the First Battle of Ypres, the French during the Nivelle Offensive, the British in the Battle of the Somme, etc. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved
Talk:Battle of Málaga (1704)

message: I think the statement at the end of the second paragraph, stating that Byng was censured for his actions, is misleading at best.  Byng went on to fight in fleet actions in 1707 and 1708 and won a major battle in 1718 (not to mentioned being created a peer in 1721) -- as noted in his Wiki page.  It would seem that this section needs to be worked on. (WHRupp (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Wholly improbable, Byng was knighted on 22 October by Queen Anne ‘as a testimony of her high approbation of his behaviour in the late action’, was promoted to vice-admiral just over a two months later, and was commanding a squadron in the Channel by summer 1705. Other inconsistencies in this article include stating that Byng's ship, Royal Katharine, was badly damaged. Byng was actually aboard Ranelagh. Benea (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byng's actions and the outcome of the battle
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal

message: For the benefit of those who dispute this, the summary of input is as follows: 
* User:JzG]: Delete (merge acceptable if anything is verifiable)
* User:Lar: Merge
* User:Lurker: Merge
* User:Avidor: Delete
* User:Fresheneesz: Keep
The remaining unsigned and no-history input discounted, per normal practice, since the comments bear no relation to policy or guidelines. The user who suggested it should be about PRT and play down the Unimodal bit clearly was not aware that we already have an article on PRT. Just zis Guy you know? 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to note that this deletion ignored the input of 8 presumably independant individuals that embellished their vote with commentary - some rather complete comentary at that, unlike many votes on AfD. Only one of those commentary suggested that the information focus on PRT in general. My personal opinion was that this AfD closed far too quickly, and that the consensus was horribly misread. If anyone reads this in the next 100 years, please keep in mind that voting is not the end all in wikipedia - but it is a useful and very real part of consensus forming. Other AfDs should be more patient and try harder to form a real consensus before closing. Fresheneesz 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of the Dardanelles (1807)

message: It seems Dardanelles Operation is the same topic as this one. Chessy999 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are completely different. The Dardanelles Operation was undertaken by the Royal Navy in order to control the shore, while the Battle of the Dardanelles was fought by the Russian Navy out in the open. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:Operation Nimble Archer

message: Judging by the source and the article's own content, it appears that the 18 injured were before the actual attack by the American warships, and therefore, does not make sense to be included in the infobox as American casualties of the operation itself. I'll let this comment sit here for a few days, and if there's a opposition then I'll let it be. But if anyone agrees please let me know.
If of course, there's no response at all, I'm just going to "be bold." Jersey John (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, I thought it best to leave it in, only with a qualifier attached. Jersey John (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for opinions concerning whether "18 casualties" actually belongs. 
Talk:War and Peace (1972 TV series)

message: I have put this series back to TV as the term miniseries is grossly missappropriate for this. At 20 episodes this is hardly "mini" and in addition the term did not exist at the time. Not only that this is a product "primarily" of UK television not the US mini series machine. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough -- how about (TV series), which seems to be more conventional? The JPS 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me that's what is it was, and is. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Perpendicular

message: This article needs to reference the use of "perpendicularity" in Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing. 
F3meyer (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing

message: The text says "use the SSS congruence theorem for ' and QPB' to " in order to prove perpendicularity, I'm not sure what needs to be before that first tick.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.226.78 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Something missing (text error)

message: The lede to this article previously said:
:A line is said to be perpendicular to a plane if 1) the line intersects the plane, 2) the line is not completely contained in the plane, and 3) the line is perpendicular to some line in the plane.
But this is wrong. Any line that intersects a plane is perpendicular to some line in the plane. The correct definition is that a line is perpendicular to a plane if it is perpendicular to every line in the plane. I've changed this definition. —Bkell (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, well, a line is perpendicular to a plane if it is perpendicular to every line in the plane that it intersects. I guess the line won't intersect every line in the plane. —Bkell (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of line perpendicular to plane 

message: What is the foot of the perpendicular if it is not at the bottom as in the diagram? I think I know but it could be made explicit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.80.46 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you think correctly, draw an oblique line and construct a vertical line on it ... dare it, make an instance image of it and put it under "Foot of a perpendicular".--Petrus3743 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just added a verbal description of this term in the section titled "Foot of a perpendicular" so that the definition is not just in a caption. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: foot of,perpendicular
Template talk:WikiProject Method engineering

message: Suggestion for new tag:
This article was edited by the Method Engineering Encyclopedia of the University of Utrecht.	This article was edited by the Method Engineering Encyclopedia of the University of Utrecht.
                                                                                            	Please note that the use of Wikipedia to host this project has been questioned. Please read this discussion and, if you wish, contribute your thoughts there.
--Goonies 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the reference to the University of Utrecht, as I feel it is not appropriate for external institutions to claim ownership of what basically boils down to a WikiProject. —Ruud 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Percentile rank

message: merge with percentile
agree
:I disagree, keep it as it is.  If someone wants to look up 'percentile rank' then that's what they should be able to do.  The explanation is clear and lucid and I really don't see what the problem is.  Nick mallory (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree, keep it seperate as it's a seperate concept. 24.222.205.6 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

message: The first two sentences of the article read (my emphasis):
"The percentile rank of a score is the percentage of scores in its frequency distribution that are equal to or lower than it. For example, a test score that is greater than 75% of the scores of people taking the test is said to be at the 75th percentile, where 75 is the percentile rank."
According to the first sentence, a percentile rank (PR) of 75 means that 75% of the population have an equal or lower score, i.e. PR 75 >= 75 %. According to the second sentence, a percentile rank of 75 means that 75% of the population have a lower score, i.e. PR 75 > 75%.
Which is correct?
I entered "Edit" mode with exactly the same question. I don't know who 'creates' these definitions, but "equal to or greater than" is NOT the same as "greater than!" The contradiction is obvious but the resolution is not obvious"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimkay317 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in definition
Talk:Chaitanya Bharathi Institute Of Technology

message: Chaitanya Bharathi Institute Of Technology→ Chaitanya Bharathi Institute of Technology: both the articles are identical: Sumanthk 08:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; please remove the "move" notice next time, as well. ;) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move