lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Precompiled header

message: Could someone list what they think is too technical? —kotepho 2006-03-19 18:47Z
:This article looks ok to me but then I'm a programmer, so it all makes sense to me. Not sure why the article itself is flagged as needing an expert, all the info looks correct. -Mloren 07:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an ok article, although for some reason it insists more on the problems than the advantages.  Someone who does not know how to program would not understand it though.  The word compile is not explained even.  --Jackaranga 13:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical? 

message: Just made some changes to the article to (hopefully) improve the grammar, clarity and especially to make it more accessible to non-technical users. The final sections are specific to the compilers and I am afraid are beyond me (while I am a programmer, I am not a programmer of C or C++). I have tagged it for attention of a C/C++ expert who can with any luck improve the later sections. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes I made 

message: I thought the overview in particular was very long-winded and confusing so I rewrote it to be clearer and more consistent with the main page on header files and removed the paragraph criticising the use of prefix headers and/or a project-wide stdafx.h because (a) it's a style issue and (b) it isn't relevant to the topic of this page. I also added a new page about prefix headers, which are often confused with pre-compiled headers (not least because prefix headers are usually pre-compiled, and not all compilers support multiple pre-compiled headers per source file). Finally I removed the tag about needing a C/C++ expert. The article looks OK to me, broadly speaking, and I am an experienced C, C++ and Objective-C developer. Ajhoughton (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December '07 Changes 

message: This article has been listed for cleanup since 2007. It could use a little editing to clarify some terms for the layman. The only other real issue I see with it is lack of sourcing. Can someone with background try to find sources for this article? I've assessed it as a start class article. --Lendorien (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup
Talk:Grandia Online

message: It's nearly September 2007. Has Beta testing started or not? --Marshmello 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -___- 

message: I think they closed it?
http://www.gungho.jp/index.php?module=Page&action=NoticeDetailPage¬ice_id=3355
217.94.46.203 (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: End of service?
Talk:Phoenix Islands

message: jazzle 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here you go.--Ratzer 19:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a World Map 

message: Anyone interested in marine biology of the islands can check out this  link, and perhaps summarise for this page: http://www.neaq.org/scilearn/conservation/pdf/Phoenix2000Report.pdf Gwinva 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marine Biology

message: From Historical Dictionary of the Discovery and Exploration of the Pacific Islands by Max Quanchi and John Robson, USA: Scarecrow Press 2005, 
European "discoverers" (from p. xviii-xix):
* Abariringa (Canton Island) or Kanton: 1825, ? discoverer
* Enderbury Island: 1823, J. Coffin
* Birnie Island:  ? not listed in this book
* McKean Island: 1794 Barner
* Rawaki (Phoenix Island): 1826 Tromelin
* Manra (Sydney Island); ? date, Emmett 
* Orona (Hull Island); ? not listed
* Nikumaroro (Gardner Island): 1825, J Gardner all from p. xviii-xix
Includes Line, Phoenix and Gilbert in the Kiribati group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwinva (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quanchi & Robson (2005)

message: From: Sharp, Andrew (1960); The Discovery of the Pacific Islands, Oxford:Oxford University Press,
"The name Phoenix was given to the group by Wilkes of the US Exploring Expedition of 1838-42 at a time when its geography was imperfectly known, a Phoenix Island having been reoported in the area.  The Russian hydrographer Krusenstern, in a note published in 1834, said on the authority of the French explorer Tromelin, who crossed the Pacific in the Bayonnaise in 1823, that the position of Phoenix Island was latitude 3°42'S, longitude 170°43'W, and that Arrowsmith's latitude for Phoenix Island was 0°12' too far north.  Jeremiah N Reynolds, in his report of 1828 to the US Navy Department on discoveries by American whaling vessels, gives the position of a 'Phenix Island', described as small and sandy and 3 miles in circumference, as latitude 2°35' S, longitude 171°39'W.  Records of American whaling voyages refer to American whaling ships called Phenix and Phoenix prior to Reynold's report in 1828. (p 210)"
Arrowsmith: I presume is John Arrowsmith as his uncle Aaron Arrowsmith died in 1823. Gwinva 02:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm striking out text as I'm placing it on the pages). Gwinva 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharp
Talk:Flunky (video game)

message: For spelling, see Talk:The Trap Door (game). -Insouciance 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of "Priestley" 
Talk:Macaquitos

message: "Some" assert that the term "Macaquitos" was first used during the War of the Triple Alliance (aka, the Paraguayan War)?  Define and properly cite who those "some" people are or the statement should be removed. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Statement

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-02-4 Automated pywikipediabot message
Talk:Trail, British Columbia

message: Minor note: the geography section seems to have been taken verbatim from a tourist blurb of some kind. aka: http://www.trail.ca/ it seems. (annonymous)
:As pointed out above, the Geography section appears to be a direct copy/paste from the trail.ca website.  It was added by an anonymous user 207.81.114.235.  I've removed the offending text. Al guy 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plaese read WP:MOS, WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Soapbox, WP:Peacock and other style/content policies/guidelines.  While your work on any article is welcome please remebmer you do not own any article, even the one about where you're from, and also remember that Wikipedia is not meant to be "tourism-friendly", it is meant to be encyclopedic; "improving" an article means bringing it in line with Wikipedia standsrds, as well as content; this will not always be in harmony with the desires of Trail city fathers or Trail's boosters....Skookum1 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Vio in Geography section

message: Pretty cool, don't see anywhere to put it in the article; not much of a cogent history section.  Maybe on an eventual page about mining and smelting in the West Kootenay-Boundary?  .Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  old image from 1908 

message: I have heard first hand knowledge about the smelter's practices and the subsequent environmental effects on the surrounding area, including the Columbia River. I came here looking for more information about it. What's going on here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:E00F:4004:11:0:0:0:3C (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, found it on the teck cominco page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:E00F:4004:13:0:0:0:37 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental damage from smelter
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hip hop

message: On the page Billy Woods, the faceless rapper, there is a photograph of him performing at a concert. I believe this picture should be shown on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia:UNCENSORED. Other editors, both IP and registered users, have removed this image as Billy Woods tries to remain faceless. These edits aren’t often, so the 3 revert policy isn’t afficiated.
If you have ideas, I would like help. Roasted (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a topic I've been mulling over as well; I've been struggling to decide my own stance on it. On the one hand, the WP:UNCENSORED argument is a strong one in favor of including the photo; on the other hand, this is a WP:BLP article, and the subject's likeness is a piece of potentially identifying information that he's on record as not wanting publicized. If anyone has experience in how those concerns have historically been weighed against each other, I'd be happy to learn more. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this discussion doesn't seem to have generated much attention, I've brought up the topic at WP:BLPN#Billy Woods to solicit input from a wider pool of users. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war happening, thoughts needed 

message: Draft:nettspend Authenyo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  m y cool draft!!!! what do w e think 

message: I have started a discussion at WikiProject Discographies which users of this WikiProject might want to contribute to. You can see and contribute to the discussion here. Thanks, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:77.169.219.78]] 

message: Hi there, this article about one of the composers behind Mary J Blige, Dr Dre, Eminem, etc is waiting review since a couple of months. It has been marked with GA status. Please advice if there is anything that needs improvement, or if I should just be patient and wait.
Draft:Camara Kambon AnamSoul (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Camara_Kambon|Camara Kambon]] draft - open for feedback 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Back That Thang Up#Requested_move_14_May_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks, Llacb47 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Back That Thang Up#Requested_move_14_May_2024]]  

message: To address issues with this article's length, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Illmatic#Split proposal that may be of interest to this WikiProject. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Illmatic]]''
Category talk:American colonial people

message: This category needs clarification.  Is it supposed to include everyone associated with  the 13 colonies from the first explorer and settler until the American revolution?
 
If they played a role in the colonies prior to the revolution should be both in this category and the American Revolution people category?  What about people who played multiple roles prior to the Revolution?  Should they be placed in each subcategory of American colonial people in which they played a roll?  Should they also be placed in this category when they did more than what the sub-categories cover?  Ideas?  Thanks Hmains 19:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created it because there was no category for American people who lived before the Revolutionary War. My guideline has been that if they qualify for the Revolutionary War people category, not to add them here. As for subcategories, the general categorization rules apply. --Jake 17:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that means that, for example, that :Category:People of Massachusetts in the American Revolution should be a subcategory of :Category: Massachusetts colonial people. Otherwise, people will double-categorize these people, which they have been frequently doing. —Kevin Myers 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of going that route, I included a better description of the intention of this category. Unfortunately, the previous description was ambiguous, and so people have basically included almost every person involved in the Revolution in the Colonial category as well. This has created a massive double-categorization which will have to be fixed. I'll do some of the cleanup and hope others will do the rest. I've done Massachusetts as an example, creating :Category:People by era in Massachusetts, which, as of this writing, has three subcategories (Colonial, Revolutionary, Civil War). Hopefully some editors will follow suit with other states -- there's lots of work to be done. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 03:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this category

message: we should have categories group people by political divisions at the time. To group them because of the political status of the places at some later time does not make sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should limit this to people in British colonies
Talk:Ro language

message: What is it that was meant by "discernition"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JmCor (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it that was meant by "discernition"? 

message: Please provide reliable secondary and tertiary sources that demonstrate the notability of the language, don't just call it "indisputable" and forget about it. That's not how establishing notability works. Also, conlanger mailing lists and Google searches do not establish notability. Kraŭs (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A google search certainly does establish notability if it instantly shows a dozen reliable sources commenting on the topic. .  Not to mention    . I shouldn't have had to bother with this, since you could easily have found these for yourself.  EEng (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hi, I recently added the "Creator" section to the article.
A photo of Edward Powell Foster and/or his tombstone would be a nice addition to it.
It would be greatly appreciated!
Jr.Leu (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add photo of creator and/or tombstone
Talk:Rosenberg Fund for Children

message: there are two books written by Robert Meeropol:  An Execution in the Family (2003) St. Martin's Press, New York and We Are Your Sons: The Legacy of Ethel and Julium Rosenberg (with Michael Meeropol).
—This unsigned comment was added by 67.101.101.46 (talk • contribs) 14 Feb 2006.
The content of this article lack any verifiable third party sources.
Vapour  —Preceding comment was added at 11:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remark moved from article

message: The mention of parent's status is irrelevent to the description of the organisation.e-tat (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Content
Talk:Double team

message: Double teaming is an important concept in many other sports, particularly American football where an exceptionally skilled wide receiver can be employed specifically to draw the attention of two defenders to allow for another receiver to remain open for a pass. It also has importance in ice hockey with similar consequences. This is a sadly neglected article that needs expansion to include a survey of the general concept as used in all sports. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just basketball 

message: Seems like a weird way to describe it. 96.79.222.94 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catch the nut?
Talk:Histone deacetylase

message: I edited the first paragraph to increase clarity. I made some other changes for increased clarity as well. In particular, the words "upregulate" and "downregulate" should be avoided unless they are used in their narrow specific sense. They should not be used as synonyms for "increase" "decrease," "inhibit"  and the like.  Eperotao 18:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light editing 

message: Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Review on histone deacetylases and brain function
Talk:V6 (band)

message: Is it really of any encylopedic interest which bloodtype the members of the band have? Zozza 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's a cultural difference. Seemingly, in Japan, bloodtype is commonly supplied in biographical trivia. From an English language perspective, it's probably not relevant. --Keitei (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodtype

message: Shouldn't "V6 (group)" redirect to "V6 (band)" instead of the other way around? TigressofIndia (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! I think it should be moved. I'll try to get another person to agree with us. わwaらraうu Smile! 04:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten somebody else to agree with me. I'll move it to "V6 (band)". Evidently it used to be "V6 (band)" but was moved to "V6 (musical group)" then "V6 (group)". わwaらraうu Smile! 04:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Centimeter

message: Can we please get a consensus about whether this article is going to be a redirect or a full article? JoshuaZ 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, inches are found on some rulers on the other side to centimetres :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inanity

message: Please append

to the redirect. Thanks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request
Talk:Magma Dragoon

message: Why was this made into a redirect with no explaination?  Where was the consensus to redirect? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.184.216.209 (talk • contribs) 
::No need to get angry. Please just look at the new page. You'll find old Magma Dragoon there. -ZeroTalk 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Talk:Bengali language/to do

message: * add citations (need more)
* create separate article: "History of Bangla Language"
* notes
* more sound samples
* examples of verb conjugation, similar to noun declension examples, as per request by User:Wilgamesh
* Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)
last updated by --ppm 01:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Dards

message: Since when do dards have anything to do with india, why is this article been written in such a way to over emphasize the presense of Dardic peoples in country's where they dont really exist such as in india?  why are indians so dilutional and complexed.  why do indians have such an inferiority complex when it comes to anything pertaining to Pakistan? Wikipedia really needs to control and warn these indians who vandalize wiki sites!  
:Hmmm... Let's see. First of all, your contention is that Dards are not present in India. But then, Jammu and Kashmir is categorized as an Indian state. You have repeatedly tried to incorporate a term "Dards in disputed Jammu & Kashmir". Now, if that is incorporated, then in all probability, you will have to remove "Dards in Pakistan" and "Dards in China" as the regions covered under these headers are also disputed and claimed by India as her territory. My suggestions to you would be to stop pushing your pro-Pak POV and try to contribute in a constructive manner. Oh, and before I forget, if you seriously think that the Indians have some kind of "inferiority complex when it comes to anything pertaining to Pakistan", then there's no point arguing with you. Btw, you can visit the following links India & Pakistan. I think that will give you some idea about who is feeling what. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Hijacked by indians 
Talk:999 (number)

message: The number 999 is indeed a Kaprekar number in base-10.
However, the article points this out as so:
999 = 33 × 37, a Kaprekar number.
To me, this seems like a non-sequitur; I fail to understand how the prime factorization of 999 relates to the property of it being a Kaprekar number. Wouldn't it make sense to instead write "9992 = 998001 = (998 + 001)2, so 999 is a Kaprekar number", or something along those lines? Maybe I'm failing to realize something about how prime factorization relates to this property. 152.3.43.55 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaprekar number
Talk:Geoffrey McSkimming

message: Geoffrey Mcskimming → Geoffrey McSkimming. The current article's title is misspelled. Notice the uncapitalised "Mcs" and how it should be "McS". I would do it myself if a redirect didn't already exist at Geoffrey McSkimming which needs deleting first, which I can't do. — Jeremy | Talk 08:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"
* Support. This is a simple spelling correction. — Jeremy | Talk 08:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: : Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"
* Support. This is a simple spelling correction. — Jeremy | Talk 08:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey and discussion

message: I haven't tagged this article as NPOV but I am quite concerned that phrases such as which delights and entertains make the article read like an advertisment rather than an encyclopedia article. --Athol Mullen 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this.--Boffob (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 
Talk:Crom Dubh

message: Crum-dubh or Crom-dubh was a REQUESTED article in the mythology section * previously, and is a PROPER noun. As it speaks about a legendary idol/god, I think it is perfectly encyclopedic. The quote is to put it in context.
Please tell me why you think otherwise. --MacRusgail 19:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crum-dubh 

message: I'm known for being a fan of IPA pronunciation guides but having THREE Irish variants is insane. I propose reducing that to the Lárchanúint (or something close to) pronunciation. We can't expect people to be aware or even interested in Irish dialectology to that extent. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they're that vastly different either. I can think of other Gaelic terms with much bigger variations in pronunciation.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Astounding. This has been sitting here since 2006. 
It is apparently just due to the misidentification of a scanned book on archive.org. It would have been enough to glance at the title page. 
It's not "Voyage of Bran" at all, it's Nutt, The Celtic Doctrine of Re-Birth. 
"book ii, p49" should have been a dead giveaway.  Voyage of Bran has no "book II", and it has no pagination.
But even the page number was miscited, it is page 149, not page 49. Cleary a typo by the already far-out careless submitter, but it has stood here for eight years. 
--dab (𒁳) 14:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Voyage of Bran