lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Shaggy parasol

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 27, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-11-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: At least in Europe, Chlorophyllum brunneum is considered to be toxic, causing severe gastrointestinal disease, while Chlorophyllum rhacodes (not rachodes, as this article claimed the name is spelled a few minutes ago) and C. olivieri are considered edible and very tasty. Why should this be different in north america and even if it is so, the english wikipedia page is not only read by people in the US, so I'm pretty sure the subject of edibility of the different species lumped together as "Shaggy Parasol" in this article should be discussed in more detail here. Sources for the toxicity of C. brunneum (unfortunately all in German, but I'm sure you're all skilled enough to be able to translate a homepage via google translate): http://pilzbuch.pilzwelten.de/garten-safranschirmling/chlorophyllum-brunneum.html, http://www.tintling.com/pilzbuch/arten/c/Chlorophyllum_brunneum.html, https://www.123pilzsuche-2.de/daten/details/Gartenschirmling.htm, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeiner_Safranschirmling#Artabgrenzung Also, those three species C. rhacodes, C. olivieri and C. brunneum look very different from each other, even in North America, so their description should mention this. Compare for instance https://www.mushroomexpert.com/chlorophyllum_brunneum.html, https://www.mushroomexpert.com/chlorophyllum_rhacodes.html and https://pilzbuch.pilzwelten.de/olivbrauner-safranschirmling/chlorophyllum-olivieri.html 5.146.47.186 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edibility Discussion
Talk:29th Brigade (Australia)

message: I am excited that someone is working on this page. My Dad was in the 7th Field Ambulance of this Brigade. I am wondering if you plan to add anything about where the Field Ambulance was when the Battalions of the Brigade were in different areas of New Guinea. I have found it difficult to find information about this Brigade - I gather a personal visit to the AWM is the way? Planning hopefully for January. If I find anything about the 7th Field Ambulance I will add it to this. 
I can give you a photo/add to this page a photo of my Dad and another member of the ambulance on a motorbike, in training I think. Also another one of them practicing how to lift an injured person.  Caroline 124.187.80.93 (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, Caroline, if you are interested in finding out some more information about the 7th Field Ambulance, this book might offer something, although I can't see more than a snippet on Google books:  (although I believe that this is largely about the unit during World War I, not World War II). Incidentally, earlier this year I wrote an article on the 8th Field Ambulance (Australia). I'd like to write something on the 7th one day, too, although it is very hard to find much in the way of sources that satisfy the site's reliable sources policy, particularly for the Militia field ambulance units that served during World War II. Regarding uploading photos, you will need to be careful to ensure that if/when you upload your photos that you license them appropriately based on their copyright status, otherwise they may be deleted. You can find more information about this here: Wikipedia:Uploading images. All the best, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 7th field ambulance of 29th Brigade
Talk:Multimachine

message: Note that an earlier version of this article was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multimachine. However, the entire content of that version was:
So I am not going to delete this new version immediately. 
But it needs considerable improvement. The main thing is "third party" references, ie. has any news medium commented on this project? How many of these machines have actually been produced? Is this article just spam for a Yahoo group? -- RHaworth 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Multimachine was mentioned in a Make Magazine website article on "open source" projects. That's how it came to my attention, as well as a lot of other peoples'. It's not the New York Times, but it's a reasonable citation. 
Nils Davis 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys! Really! I'm so glad I found this article again. I would have had no chance in hell to find the pages it links to, if someone had deleted the article. What is it with you people who hold up some kind of artificial encyclopedic standard, but pay no heed to sacrifice any information that might be useful to someone. I just don't get it. Am I really the only one who used to love wikipedia especially because it held all kind of strange knowledge? I strongly feel this kind of behavior can only be detrimental to any collection of knowledge, and certainly it is anathema to the wiki paradigm. --BjKa (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: Unfortunately, it seems "multimachine" is a very common keyword. Let this be a lesson to anybody who comes up with a product name...
I've dug in all the sources to which I have access and have found nothing. But that may be because of filtering out bad results. Also, considering that ref is actually just a blog post, I'm wondering just how notable this really is. I won't contest that it's cool but its notability is very questionable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult to find sources 

message: There's a difference between "accuracy" or "precision".  Discuss?
Wikkrockiana (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. One way to state it simply is that precision is how close you can come to the same location twice, whereas accuracy is whether the location you got to is the place you meant to get to. It may sound goofy, but it's true. In engineering the difference can matter, although in daily life it may not. See "Accuracy and precision" for more info. — ¾-10 21:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MultiMachine "accuracy" or "precision"

message: "Information used by permission of Pat Delaney, the founder of the multimachine project." <- This was originally at the bottom of the article. Wizard191 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source note
Talk:C (New York City Subway service)

message: In edits such as this one, an editor insists on the following text, attributed to a New York Times article: "The New York Times has called the C the 'least loved of New York City subway lines,' citing its fleet of R32s, the oldest cars in the system, frequent breakdowns, and low scheduled service."
Are the words "low scheduled service" justified by the text of the Times article? Or are they original research that go beyond what is in the source? I'm not finding anything in the Times article that says that, but maybe I'm missing something. Requesting input from previously uninvolved editors on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It's not in the Times article. The Straphangers Campaign report  says that overall, maintenance is better. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I've removed, and reworked the paragraph to bring in conformity with the source. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but I'd suggest leaving it open, in case there are any objections or further comments. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I wasn't suggesting that the RfC be closed: I was merely saying that - from my point of view - the issue appeared to be resolved in the text of the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the editor who made an issue of this has not commented. He seems to be focusing on the related RfC at R32 (New York City Subway car), but I assume he knows about this. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is text in article justified by source? 

message: The templates reflect the current subway car assignments and it should not be removed.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't remove template 

message: I have removed the statement that the R211s will replace the R32s on the C in 2021-2022 if everything goes to plan. It is unsourced, failing our verifiability policy, and speculative (claiming that the C train will have a certain fleet in the future), failing our Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. If someone has a reliable source for both statements that will end the speculation, then feel free to add it. epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  R211 replacement 

message: "Fleets can interchange between A and C". Why there is an edit war going on right here? Please add references when adding the statement, thank you.SunDawn (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IP's were being disruptive and potentially violating WP:3RR. This is why it got semi-protected. LOMRJYO(About × contribs)  13:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And please, don't SHOUT. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleets can interchange Edit War
Talk:Defense Contract Audit Agency

message: What is the relationship between the DCAA and the GAO?  Is there one?  Should this be explained in the article?  70.250.190.30 (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to GAO

message: I removed the exceptions for Raytheon and Northrup Grumman from the list of territory covered by the regional offices, because I could not find any supporting references. This information seems relatively minor, not necessary for the article, and may be available only from sources internal to DCAA. Folklore1 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agency structure 
Talk:Rip It Up (Adelaide)

message: Editorial Co-Cordinator
* Lachlan Aird, 2013-present
Digital Manager
* Jess Bayly, 2013-present
General Manager
* Luke Stegemann, 2009-present  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripituppublishing (talk • contribs) 00:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Clothesline (magazine) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Clothesline (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Fram (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clothesline (magazine)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:V (New York City Subway service)

message: v train does not provid r32/r42  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.8.187 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The line doesn't even exist anymore, so it is there for historical purposes as the service had once used these trains in the past.--IGeMiNix (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  guys stop putting pic
Talk:Trigate transistors

message: Adequate content but insufficient context - only details Intel's nonplanar transistor development effort instead of widespread industry interest.   I have created a barebones Multigate device entry which puts FinFETs, tri-gate devices, and GAAs all on the same page and has sufficient breadth for sufficient mention of multigate memory cells.    I propose to merge Trigate and FinFET entries on to this new page.  Any objections?  Irene Ringworm 07:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:IRT Lenox Avenue Line

message: Is it appropriate to say that the Lenox Avenue Line is a branch of the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line? The original IRT subway appears to consider it as such. Tinlinkin 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branch of Broadway-Seventh? 
Talk:IRT Nostrand Avenue Line

message: Do I understand it correctly that this line is completely underground? The line diagram shows it as aboveground. If underground I believe it should use . EdBever (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's correct it is entirely underground. However, the metro (blue) set of icons is rather limited. The Nostrand Ave line would be one of the easier lines to convert to an underground set of icons. As more icons are added, it will become easier to convert other line diagrams to a more topographically correct setup. Acps110 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for your answer! EdBever (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: underground
Talk:White Horse Temple

message: For the first section "Founding" of the article "White Horse Temple", there was given a reference from Hou Hanshu (the Book of Later Han).  I could not find this thing in Hou Hanshu.  Hou Hanshu has many pages.  Where is this quotation to be found?  In which section of Hou Hanshu, 本纪(ben-ji), 志(zhi),列传(lie-zhuan) or what?  I would be very thankful if someone is able to help. Suminxue (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help me
Talk:Phantom of Inferno

message: Wasn't there adult content in the japanese version? I'd like to know what changes to the game have been made by hirameki -- 79.239.146.168 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: *Mania.com: DVD part 1 DVD part 2
*Active Anime: DVD part 1 DVD part 2
*ANN: DVD part 1 Shelf Life DVD part 1 Shelf Life DVD part 2 Australia ed. DVD part 1
--KrebMarkt (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review(s) 
Talk:Best of Live (Foreigner album)

message: All  of the  specific dates are listed at Music Brains. I'll try to organize the track listing soon. DLManiac (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Best way to cite that^^ ??? DLManiac (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff to add
Talk:Bit mouthpiece

message: To the ADMINs:  These templates are confusing, here's my intent:
Don't delete this page.  Only delete the one I messed up trying to move this article, and merge that article's hisory here.  Clear as mud?
Keep bit mouthpiece and keep the new article Bit (horse). Delete Bit (horse and merge its history back into this bit mouthpiece article, which is where it came from in the first place before I screwed things up by trying to move an article that didn't need to be moved. Montanabw 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Snoutwood 09:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History merge request 

message: There is no question that this article would benefit from more footnotes and some updates based on research.  To that end, this diff shows an attempt that was made.  The problem was a combination of what reads like copy-pasting, primary source research and some writing that is just too technical for this overview article. Also, we have articles such as bit ring and bit shank where some of this information would fit better. The issue of the severity of flat-link bits is probably one that could be looked at in the kimberwick article as well as the bit ring article.  I'm also not totally opposed to looking at all the bit articles with an eye to more sourcing. But we have to write better articles, not replace so-so content with more so-so content.  Montanabw(talk) 00:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement discussion
Talk:Free File Alliance

message: I can't find any reference on the IRS website or H&R Block's Website about any limitations except for the $54,000 AGI limitation. This said, H&R Block's Free File website says (after I've filled out allllll the electronic paperwork) that I don't qualify for Free File. What gives? Where is this limitation specified? --Gadlen (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations on Free File? 

message: I've been looking around a bit for negative coverage on this "alliance" and haven't found any really mainstream sources. The blog post "Free File Fillable Forms: Not Directly With IRS" seems to have the most discussion, including the discussion about freefillableforms.org (apparently run by H&R Block) versus freefillableforms.com (apparently run by Intuit). Someone also pointed out to a letter made by the alliance in 2007 (" Free File Alliance Sends Letter To Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley Outlining Concerns Regarding Creation of Government-Sponsored Competitor To Industry" showing how they lobby Congress to stop the government from directly accepting web-based forms. Unfortunately, the alliance's websites are deliberately crippled which makes it very difficult to submit a tax return with any amount of capital gains. Oh well... II | (t - c) 20:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no sources for this, so I won't edit the article, but I do have a recollection of how this went down-- the IRS intended to allow the public to file their own taxes online, which makes eminent sense.  Why would they accept paper forms but not electronic forms?  Anyway, the tax preparation software companies freaked out at the idea that anyone could submit their taxes electronically and lobbied heavily to stop it from happening.  This was the "compromise"-- a crippled version of the tax prep software, barely publicized, available to only a subset of the American public. --Replysixty (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies? 
Talk:Fuel Price Escalator

message: Maybe this should be merged into Hydrocarbon oil duty.EECavazos 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  We have two stubby articles at the moment, whereas one comprehensive article would work better. Regan123 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have integrated all the verifiable content from this article into the Hydrocarbon oil duty history section, and propose the convert this article to a redirect within a week or so if there are no objections. I have added a banner to this page to that effect. PeterEastern (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?
Talk:Gift Aid

message: Is there any information about the controversies regarding gift aid? I do not understand it fully but if someone signs a gift aid declaration and then doesn't pay enough to cover the tax claimed back THEY are liable to pay it. 'The donor must pay at least as much UK tax (Income Tax and/or Capital Gains Tax) as the amount of Income Tax that you’ re reclaiming. If a donor makes a number of Gift Aid donations, including to other charities and CASCs, they must pay a sufficient amount of UK tax on the total amount of those donations and they may be required to pay any shortfall in tax paid to HMRC' from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/basics.htm#4
Also http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Finance/article/1116452/tax-adviser-jailed-70m-gift-aid-fraud/ about gift aid fraud 
and 'CHARITIES are fleecing millions of pounds from taxpayers by fraudulently claiming Gift Aid, it has been revealed. HMRC said it has detected fraudulent gift aid claims from charities totalling more than £10m' http://www.thirdforcenews.org.uk/2012/07/charities-commit-gift-aid-fraud-says-hmrc/ and http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/13054/fraudulent_gift_aid_claims_from_charities_top_20m_in_two_years_says_hmrc says £20m in 2 years.
Also this article is good about the cons of gift aid http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/30/gift-aid-hidden-catch#start-of-comments
Sweetie candykim (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Poorly titled, poorly worded, poorly laid out.  Let's delete this, eh?  As an erstwhile accountant, I gotta say that this section is virtually unintelligible.  Boscaswell talk 15:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue to HMRC section.   
Talk:Greedy (film)

message: Is there some significance to the fact that this is the only time that Fox and Douglas have been cast together? Lots of movies are the only time actor X and actor Y have been cast together. What makes this one worth mentioning? Kafziel Talk 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance? 

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag
Talk:John Bigge

message: This main body of this article is full of POV and clear personal opinion that is devoid of contemporary Australian opinions on Bigge, his actions during the time he spent in Australia, his personal opinions on Convict emancipation, his aristocratic disposition towards 'lower classes' - many aspects Bigge's is criticised for regarding his 'report' that is roundly seen as being nothing more than what 'landed gentry' wanted done, IE not an impartial report in the slightest. There needs to be some much better research into his reports in context to the conditions Bigge was tasked with reporting on, that of reimposing the fear of transportation to begin with, and not making life in Australia seem better to that in Britain at the time, which is completely missing from the reading so far.Nürö  G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV is clearly evident
Talk:Animals in Islam

message: Hello everyone I will on add a new section to this article: Animals in Islamic Art.
It is pretty much self explanatory and deals a lot with the visual depiction of lions, gazelles, and deer on a variety of Islamic artistic mediums. I venture off here and there in regards to mentioning birds and briefly an elephant. But over all it is brief and will have a lot of room for more improvement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Flavio Ortiz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a new section: Animals in Islamic Art 

message: You placed Improve the lead on the article.I think the issue could be solved by removing some extra material of the lead. In my opinion they are not suitable for lead: Stunning cannot be used to kill an animal, according to the Halal Food Authority (HFA), a non-profit organisation that monitors adherence to halal principles. But it can be used if the animal survives and is then killed by halal methods, the HFA adds," reports the BBC.[7] Prohibitions include swine, carrion,[8] and animals involved in dhabihah (ritual slaughter) in the name of someone other than God.[6] The Quran also states "eat of that over which the name of Allah, hath been mentioned."[9]. Do you agree?Homiho (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that removing the quoted material would certainly be an improvement. Snuish (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead section 

message: Some of the things talked about seem to be from a quranist perspective, e. g. that “the majority of islamic scholars” attribute the ban on keeping dogs in one's own home to “pre-islamic arabic mythology”. In the same paragraph, the author also implies that hadith are not a legitimate source. It's objectively incorrect to state that most scholars reject the ban on dogs in homes, as most islamic scholars belong to schools of thought which accept hadith about the dog ban. Monkeyfan2 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've addressed this issue, let me know if you think further edits are needed.VR talk 20:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping dogs in households 

message: Under the current redaction, breeding and killing animals for their leather or silk would be a sin.
Is it so or is the article incomplete? 
-- Error (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not for food 

message: https://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/122702/
on islamweb.net I read that the majority of scholars agree that you are *obliged* to kill a pig if you come across it. Is there any truth to a large group of scholars believing this? If so I think that this quote should be removed or elaborated on. Henrikfr123 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “It is forbidden to kill any animal except for food or to prevent it from harming people.”