lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gerry Bednob

message: Why would the article say that he's a Bangladeshi actor if right underneath it, it says that he's Trinidad born. If he's Trinidad born, then he's a Trinidadian actor. If it was a Trinidadian of African heritage or more likely mixed heritage (as many Trindadians are, I would know being one), it wouldn't make him an African actor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.230.224 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It shouldn't say that he's Bangladeshi 

message: Is there a reason the filmography is chronological with most recent first, rather than most recent last like most of Wikipedia?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography
Talk:Tera di Solo y suave biento

message: Can someone explain why the spellings in the 7 September 2006 edits are so different than the original lyrics found on the Internet?  Badagnani 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several ways of spellings, these appear to conform to the 1976 Ortografia (http://www.fpi.an/), which were introduced after the anthem was written Saintkevin 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Alas, I was "only" born in the Netherlands, but my parents are from the Islands, yes :-) Saintkevin 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 September edits

message: What is the origin of the lyric? Who wrote it and when was it adopted as anthem?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikat (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  history
Talk:How Should We Then Live?

message: I see where a previous attempt was made to put information about this work in Wikipedia. Then it was all replaced with a Redirect. There is also no previous history on this Discussion page as to why that happened. I would appreciate it very much if there was some discussion before this happens again. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous Attempt
Template talk:Sex

message: Change "Men who have sex with men" to "Men who have sex with other men" and change "Women who have sex with women" to "Women who have sex with other women" 68.108.68.211 (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See Men who have sex with men and Women who have sex with women. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019 

message: Requesting to add Sex economy at first in tbe sex industry section. 103.67.158.55 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . That (confusingly titled) article appears to be about the application of economic theory to sex, and not about the economics of the sex industry. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020 

message: In the current version of the template, a link to Adolescent sexuality in the United States is juxtaposed with links to Sexuality in ancient Rome, ... Sexuality in South Korea. There's a somewhat inappropriate implication there, and I am not aware of another article that could take that link's place; so I request removal of the link.  209.166.108.199 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: No such link exists nor did it in the version linked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality § Help needed with semi-protected template.  209.166.108.199 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Help needed with semi-protected template|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality §&nbsp;Help needed with semi-protected template]]

message: Stumbled across Sexually active life expectancy and thought perhaps it could benefit from being added to this template? skarz (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexually active life expectancy
Talk:American International School

message: The article on the Hong Kong school has been moved to its own page. This page should be used for a general article about American International Schools or as a disambiguation page for American International Schools (as now). Most American International Schools throughout the world are referred to by those who attend them and those who live in the communities in which they are located as "the American International School" or "AIS", so it is misleading to use the term for only the Hong Kong school. -- AmbientArchitecture 04:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to [[American International School Hong Kong]]
Talk:Groundhog Day gale of 1976

message: I don't know of many meteorology articles on Wikipedia that date back to 2004.  This one is worthy of help.  Thegreatdr 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One of our older articles needed some serious help
Talk:Plait

message: Seems like plait and braid should be merged...  Is the usage of the word plait to mean a pleat common enough in any English speaking region of the world to make combining them a bad idea?  Dfred 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. —Keenan Pepper 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense.  Is there a minimum required level of consensus on small things like this or should we just go ahead? --Rob* 10:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since suggesting this I've been working on some other knotting articles...  In doing research for those I've started to realize that the terminology for braids, plaits, and sinnets/sennits is not entirely standardized.  Braid and plait do seem to be fairly interchangable, though plait and sinnet seem to also have some overlap.  Thus I have been waiting until sorting-out exactly how to handle this in terms of disambiguations, merges, etc.  When I have a chance I will post a summary of the references I have access to regarding these terms. --Dfred 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Braid?
Talk:List of support ships of the Royal Navy

message: Would Bristol not count as a support ship , is it still berthed in Portsmouth ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS BRISTOL 

message: Hi 
I ve just searched your site and found no mention of a boat that I own, she was stationed at Devonport from 1944-1982 
just to let you know
Paul Hopley
hoptoit04@yahoo.co.uk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.13.219 (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Nuthatch
Talk:American Champion Citabria

message: For whatever it's worth (before anyone asks), titling this article simply Citabria makes sense.  The aircraft article naming guidelines don't quite address the complicated situation that applies here.  The Citabria (in all its varieties) is a significant enough variant to deserve a separate article from Aeronca Champ.  This article could be called Champion Citabria, on the rationale that Champion was the designer and original manufacturer, but this isn't the name generally thought of first today.  This article could be called Bellanca Citabria, on the rationale that Bellanca produced—according to some sources—the largest combined count of these designs.  This article could be called American Champion Citabria, on the rationale that this is the current owner and producer of the design.  The choice of the name Citabria seems to settle these competing claims in accordance with the suggestion of the general naming conventions to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." SkipperPilot 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never seen that before.  Reference required.  Paul Beardsell 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anyone know the "right" way to say Citabria? Shreditor 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation
Talk:List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy

message: Seems to me that it would be better either to name the sections for their periods or dates, or date the actual commands and fleets. I have added stations, but these were of course neither commands nor units (Fleets), but geo-administrative divisions, so maybe need to come off this list into a list of their own if all stations can be researched going back to formation of the RN. Probably need a sub-category of their own Stations of the Royal Navy--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for deleting the List of Royal Navy stations Buckshot06. You arrogance is equalled by your ignorance with comments like this "List of Royal Navy stations ‎ (rmv incorrect information - there was no C-in-C Hartlepool, for example)" based on your persistent argument despite facts that stations were a command and not operational areas of the Royal Navy, which ACCORDING TO YOU required a C-in-C. Hartlepool was a station, of the Coast Guard, since the early 1830s at least, and at that time was under RN jurisdiction. As such RN vessels could be assigned to the station to patrol against smugglers without having to report to a "station C-in-C". Of course these barques and sloops of war didn't require a fleet C-in-C, so bad luck for them.--58.165.128.120 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should clarify; as you've seen with the still-working link, the article in question has been redirected, not merged, and you're free, as is any other user, to reanimate it. However, I would strongly suggest sticking to subjects you know something about, like the Red Army. Buckshot06(prof) 16:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic sections
Talk:The Reluctant Astronaut

message: I note in the history that someone attempted to remove the soundtrack section a few months ago on the grounds that it is trivia. This revision was reverted a few days later. The soundtrack, however, is completely insignificant deserving at most a few words. Unless someone can provide a compelling argument for "significance" (in the Wikipedia sense), then the section should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.1.233 (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No counter-argument; section removed.70.215.25.134 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Film soundtracks are not a trivial part of a film and this soundtrack section is not a trivial part of this article.   I am going to add the section back in since there is a specific Wikipedia terminology for trivia and this does not fall under it. Aspects (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Aspects (and the various IPs) It has been removed again (not by me). The soundtrack section is (was) unsourced but that could have been fixed. The applicable guideline as to whether this should be included is  MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. The guideline states that "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film." The removal of the material seems justified by the MOS. Is there something particularly important about this soundtrack that would justify ignoring the MOS? Meters (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contribution.  The section was first removed without any edit summary and I reverted.  Then the reason stated was the soundtrack was trivial, not that the section was trivial or unsourced, which I could understand.  I think we are all using the wrong terminology, since this is a score and not a soundtrack. The quote you provided is about using the :Template:Tracklisting for soundtracks that have different composers versus a score that should be presented how it was in the article. The appropriate part of the section is "If the film score is a key aspect of production, it can be covered in a "Music" subsection of the article's "Production" section."  The score from this film is not a key aspect of the production given that it only has the infobox and track listing. If there was sourced information about it, then there could be an argument to keep it, as such I now agree that the section is not needed. Aspects (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If the soundtrack is in fact part of the movie, and is notable, it's not "trivia." Move to reinstate. Twalls (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack section is TRIVIA
Talk:List of squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy

message: I think that this list could be made more useful. A bare list without "blue links" is just that - a list. Until articles are written on the bulk of these I suggest we should add info such as, perhaps, constituent ships, dates active and theatres/ fleets attached to. Any objections? I'll maybe add a couple, as examples. There are precedents for this. Folks at 137 23:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional info?

message: Hi I would like to page move this article to either List of divisions, patrols, squadrons and flotillas of the Royal Navy or simply List of formations of the Royal Navy . the reason it is a list of only two types of naval formation and excludes the 1st Division, 2nd Division  3rd and 4th Division which i feel should be listed here and so on. Any comments welcome I will continue updating page and leave it for a week or two thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose If this became 'formations' all formations including fleets/commands would have to be listed. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title suggested move and change of title 

message: I have removed Flag Officer First Flotilla and Second and Third Flotilla from the 'port flotillas' section; a look at Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989 and the first page of the Jane's Fighting Ships entry for 1989-90 will reveal that First Flotilla parented destroyer and frigate squadrons from multiple ports; Flag Officer Second Flotilla was the UK National Task Group Commander, and Third Flotilla looked after the large ships - none had responsibility for all the warships assigned to a particular port. Ditto Surface Flotilla. Nb . Buckshot06 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of incorrect information
Talk:Iran's missile forces

message: Many citations are asserted as facts, can anyone trace the sources pleaseAbountu 22:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

message: This article mentions Zolfaghar and Z-3 missiles which are article doesn't mention. What are these? Rmhermen 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zolfaghar could be a nickname it's a mythological reference and has been given as a name to alot of items in the Iran military. There is a Zolfaghar-73 which is a short range guided missile, although I'm not really familiar enough with it to know where to add this. SemperFideliS81 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Others?

message: This article has had several sections, including the claim of being second to the DPRK in missile forces and the text now ref'd at footnote 2, copied from this URL:http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/index.html.
This should be altered or deleted, and if nothing is done within three weeks I will start deleting all the copyrighted sections.Buckshot06 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems
Talk:American Champion Decathlon

message: "General aviation" is not a type of aircraft but a type of operation.  GA means not a scheduled service and not military.  So, the 8KCAB is not GA necessarily.  Could be a military spotter.  Could be a scheduled 1 passenger airliner.  OK, unlikely, but nevertheless, "general aviation" is still wrong.  What it is, is a light aircraft.  Unfortunately the new FAA category light-sport aircraft causes confusion as most light aircraft are not LSA.  The caption beneath the photo in this article could be taken to mean that this aircraft is a light-sport aircraft.  It is not.  Both issues fixed.  Paul Beardsell 20:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: I have removed the "quality" assessment as the assessor did not follow the instructions, which are:  Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.  Paul Beardsell 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: In the "Famous People" section, everything after the first sentence is not related to the airplane, but to Steve Fossett's disappearance, and I think it should be removed. Thoughts? 69.89.111.51 04:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Fossett's Disappearance 
Talk:Rudebox/Archive 1

message: Please check the correct name of the album. --Red-Blue-White 22:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon, Play, HMV and CD-Wow all say the album is called Rudebox, not Rudebox 74. This artice refers to the album as Rudebox, as does the one about the single. The picture of the album cover on this very page even just says Rudebox. So is there a reason why the article is titled Rudebox 74? Syxx 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of album

message: The album was ment to be called Rudebox '74, and that's the reasson why this was the former name of this article. But in my opinion the album-article should be moved to the article Rudebox and the single moved to Rudebox (single). Anybody disagree? Otherwise i will move the pages. Pardy 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page

message: Yes. I agree. Article Rudebox and Rudebox (album) should become Rudebox (single)
Jaymzanator (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Move page

message: There's not many reviews posted up that show how this album was largely reviled by critics. further more, NME didnt give it 8/10. they gave it 2/10.
it's mostly about how great the album did, when it didnt really.
Indeed this article is clearly biased. If you have a citation from the 2/10 review please, please include it. Otherwise the NME score should probably just be removed. I will dig out a couple of other reviews and include bits too. RogMcDog 12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: Sorry, these are against wikipedia guidelines. Refer Wikipedia:Record charts 60.234.242.196 12:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart Trajectories
Talk:American Champion Scout

message: Wiki page re Bellanca Scout
Information re largest single operator is incorrect.
"The largest single operator of the type is Western Australia's Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), who operate a fleet of ten aircraft ..."
Largest single operator is Royal Canadian Air Cadets with 16X total as per Transport Canada, Canadian Civil Aircraft Register
http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ccarcs/aspscripts/en/current.asp
Note: Register lists slightly different versions of Royal Canadian Air Cadets based on date that planes were registered - sometimes referred to by national body (Royal Canadian Air Cadets); sometimes referred to by provincial department of the national body (i.e. Royal Canadian Air Cadets Ont for the province of Ontario).
Rob Barbe204.101.3.194 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellanca Scout - Error re Largest Single Operator 
Talk:Li Fan (Han dynasty)

message: "around 90"
* What happened around 90? Birth? Death? NorthernThunder 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am trying to verify the existing statements in this article, to expand it and to add references.
Fortunately the Polish version of this article references to this biographical dictionary (p. 410-411)
Minos27 (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effort to expand this article / add references
Talk:Euclid number

message: This article was tagged as confusing.  I think this stems from primorialot beign defined in the article.  However, it is linked and people who don't know the term (e.g. myself) can follow the link.  I therefore removed the tag for confusion. RJFJR 22:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The relevant property is that these are sequences that use logic similar to Euclid's to generate primes.  It is stated in the article that Euclid never specifically used this sequence; the name is a (presumably 20th century) addition.
Euclid-Mullin number is only relevant as recreational mathematics, as is this.  I can either revert (and improve) the merge, or I can AfD Euclid-Mullin number if you feel that article is not worth salvaging. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With multiple published papers on the topic of the Euclid–Mullin sequence it is independently notable, regardless of your opinions of its importance. You can go ahead and AfD if you want to be tendentious about it, but I predict it will pass. Besides, the content in its article is twice as long as the article here, so including it here would either be WP:UNDUE or would entail cutting large amounts of relevant and properly sourced material. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it won't pass AfD after your improvements.  I personally would merge Sylvester's sequence into this article as well, but I'm moving on. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging in [[Euclid–Mullin sequence]] 

message: According to Knuth, Graham & Patashnik's Concrete Mathematics (pg. 111) E# is not P# + 1. It says E[n] = E[n-1] x E[n-2] x ... E[1] + 1
E[1] = 1
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8e80:30df:99c4:fbfd:3f0f:ee0 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? The definition you give matches the one for our article Sylvester's sequence, which doesn't mention Euclid. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I am not doubting you, but it's what Knuth said--check the book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8E80:30DF:C26:DB0F:6530:119C (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not what I expected
Talk:Albert J. Ellis Airport

message: I noticed that the reference to philly was removed from this article. It was a clever vandalism because I will be on that service this coming friday. Rob110178 (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Philly Service

message: Who is the airport named after?  What did Albert J. Ellis do that was notable enough to have an airport named after him?JeremiahJohnson (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namesake