lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Visual Pinball

message: I have reverted the article to this version from the 29th. Unfortunately, the material added since that point is the very definition of original research: it is investigatory material obtained from an editor's own observations, and thus is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Parts of it may be useful to the article, but they must take the form of purely descriptive text which is backed up by reliable, secondary sources. This article may not be used simply to accumulate data on the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UnMAMEd / manufacturer details section 

message: Apparently, before this page can considered for protection in order to stop the on-going revert war, a discussion on the subject is necessary. The question: is http://vpforums.org or http://vpuniverse.com the official website of this software? — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff )
: This seems simple. If you run the software and go to Help, there is a box labeled "Web Site." Click the box and you are sent to http://vpforums.org. I have found no mention of the other site within the software or on any official documentation. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 01:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are either the official website?  One may be their preferred forum, but it doesn't make it the official website.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, the same person seems to be making the same change to add the other url, and it has been reverted, and is heading towards blacklisting if the person is not prepared to communicate. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  Philosophically, perhaps—but a prominent link to vpforums.org is on the project's Github page. – AndyFielding (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website: vpforums or vpuniverse? 

message: Among the simplification suggestions I made tonight—you know, replacing three words with one, that sort of thing—was introducing the common initialisms for Visual Pinball (VP) and Visual PinMAME (VPM). Defined and used clearly, they avoid much redundancy. It's common style to use the full terms at the tops of new sections, though. – AndyFielding (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifications
Talk:Shanty Hollow Lake

message: i just changed north to North in the sentence, "The lake is located approximately 17 miles north of Bowling Green and is used for fishing. 216.20.155.106 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, north is correct in this instance. Please refer to MOS:COMPASS, unless north is part of a name (like North Yorkshire) it shouldn't be capitalized.  CommissarDoggo (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing
Category talk:Science fiction editors

message: Those concerned with the biographies of editors should be aware that the professional lives of editors are much less well-documented than those of authors. Often, documentation of their work and careers exists in print only in brief mentions in trade journals and much of this material is not available on the web.
Many of the biographies of science fiction editors came to Wikipedia via the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (circa 2004) where they were created by people knowledgeable in the subject area. Material that meets Wikipedia's criteria for "verifiability" may not be readily available to support these biographical entries. 
This does not mean that these peole or their careers lack notability. Pleasantville 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly acceptable to cite sources on Wikipedia which are not on the internet (such as articles or interviews in Locus, Chronicle, or, of course, The New York Review of Science Fiction. Shsilver 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with all topics, if we can't find verifiable sources then the material should be left out. Only verfiable material should be included. -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (a) I do not "follow you around". I have your bio and that of your husband on my watchlist.; (b) All sourcing is labor intensive' (c) you can move unsourced text to talk, and slowly re-add as you find sources. Better a short article that is verifiable, than a long one which is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion wouldn't exist if you, Jossi, hadn't followed me article to article marking sf editor articles as lacking sources in the first place. I did not write the material in question. Should someone go through and stubify some substantial portion of the wikipedia articles on science fiction editors, that would seem to most rational people to be vandalism, so I am sure no one is going to do that.  --Pleasantville 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Shsilver is right. Offline sources are valid references, especially where most of the sources are not online. Avt tor 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Frank and Ernest (comic strip)

message: Why is this so bare? There is absolutely no description of this comic strip. At the very least, it should be mentioned that it's a comic strip that revolves around two homeless men, which is basically the plot, a la Beckett.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.65.6 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Details on strip

message: I've added a detail on the author. I don't know if it's actually true, I just assumed the reference website was correct. Peter 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found it on the offical faq page. I'm pretty sure it's all good eh. Peter 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Henry Joseph Grayson

message: The information here is taken from
W. M. Bale, Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society, 1919, p. 20, 1938, p. 239 and as cited above; Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, vol. XXXI, Annual Report, 1918; The Argus and The Age, Melbourne, 23 March 1918; private information and personal knowledge.
This appears to be in the public domain.--Esprit15d  (talk ¤ contribs) 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was created only with text taken from Dictionary of Australian Biography which is in the public domain. The  template is used in the article to specify this. - Diverman 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Preston Foster

message: Does anyone know if he wrote or copy wrote any more music? I just recently found out he was a very closely related to me. Northsouthfamily (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When I did some work on this article a few years ago - to confirm that the white actor Preston Foster was not the writer of "Got My Mojo Working" - I tried, but failed, to find some more information about Preston "Red" Foster.  I haven't seen anything to suggest that he wrote any other songs.  The only snippets of information about him that I could find were in this article, which briefly refers to his presence in court during a copyright case.  I'll see if I can track anything down, but don't hold out much hope.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

text: BMI indicates that he wrote several other songs, including Ann Cole's great "I've Got Nothing Working Now", the follow-up to "Mojo" (YouTube link here)  That might suggest that he may have been in Ann Cole's band, or close to her.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Here is a photo of Preston "Red" Foster, circa 1966.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preston "Red" Foster
Talk:Nucleus ambiguus

message: Could anyone more talented than me tidy the images up? Thanks!
Suggestions -- (1) add more information about the subnuclear anatomy of the NAmb (e.g. ref D. Hopkins's fundamental work from the 1980s-1990s), including input-output connections and (2) add more information about the functional-anatomical relationships between NAmb subdivisions, their target sites in the periphery, and their physiologic and pathophysiologic functions (e.g. compact formation = large, tightly-clustered cholinergic neurons with elongated perisomatic dendritic bundles, massive input from NTScen --> esophagus, important for reflex control of swallowing / esophageal peristalsis; similar for loose formation, external formation...).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.geerling (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Fusion protein

message: I think all pages discussing "chimeric proteins" or "fusion proteins" should be combined into one page, which would discuss the general principles of proteins created through the joining of genetic sequences originally coding for separate polypeptides. This would discuss the concepts currently stubbed at recombinant fusion protein and oncogene fusion protein in separate headings, as well as discussing the idea of natually occurring fusion proteins which are not oncogenes. Concepts which are relevant to all chimeric proteins, such as the modularity of protein functional domains, could be efficiently discussed if these pages were merged, and the title would be much more obvious and intuitive to link to.
There is currently a similar page at Chimera (protein), and I'm not averse to merging all of the content into that page instead, although I think fusion protein or chimeric protein are more obvious titles. The disambiguation of membrane fusion protein could be easily handled with an "otheruses" template, rather than a full disambig page. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look, and it seemed that the large majority of the information on those pages was redundant, so without a great deal of grace, I simply redirected the excess pages to fusion protein. – ClockworkSoul 08:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: I plan to add more information on therapeutic applications including: drug composition & uses, fusion of fluorescent proteins & G-protein coupled receptors. I plan to add more information on protein design including: tandem fusion, domain insertion, post-translational protein conjugation, biocatalysts, fusion constructs. I plan to add more information on fusion protein linkers properties.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleyreneely (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Additions
Talk:Routing protocol

message: This had been a redirect to route assignment which is about transport and traffic rather than networking. I've made into a redirect to router but this should really be an article rather than a redirect. Secretlondon 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - there was an article under the plural Routing protocols, and a redirect to a completely different page in the singular. Now all at the singular. Secretlondon 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

message: The article needs to be separated from the List of Routing protocols simply because it explains the basics of any generic routing protocol. Explanations of other routing protocols should stem from this understanding.
--Aoommen 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Redirect 

message: This article needs to be completely re-written.  It is useless as it is now.  It should talk about routing protocols and not routing and the editors should bear in mind that wiki is NOT an help guide ref, or a how to.
I have tagged this article list to be merged with Routing protocol this entire thing is a total mess.  In my mind you would only create this list if the article is so big that you could use the list as a reference.  But the Routing protocol article in itself is poorly written. As well people, (editors) do not even see, or perceive the differnce between routing and routing protocols.  Previous editors have not done a good job seperating the two.  They are two different things remember.  In any event this list needs to be merged with the general article until such time that the article size warrants a list. (which it currently does not). --akc9000 (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be re-written Merged 

message: Update the article Router if you are updating infomation about Routers, NOT routing protocols.  Update the article, Routing protocol if you want to update information on the protocols routers use.
Finally update the article, Routing, if you want to update this topic without discussing the protocols behind routing.
Please remember: in the beginning there were no routing protocols, everthing has static maps.  Splitting the articles in this manner was the best way to avoid confusing the average user.  Remember, Wiki is an encyclopedia, as such it is not a how-to guide or a user manual.  the articles are connected with Wiki links so if I usere wants the detailed information, it is only a click away. Please do not place the wrong information in the wrong article or your edits will be reverted. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 11:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What belongs on this page 

message: If you are adding a routing protocol on this page, you will need to cite the protocol. If there is an RFC on it, cite it.  Please do the cite properly. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites Please ! 

message: I wonder whether "L3" stands for "layer three", and if so, whether it could be avoided, or should be introduced explicitly. Unfree (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: L3
Talk:Shannon Knows DEC

message: Personally, I believe that this should remain a separate page, since it lists the content of the newsletter, as opposed to the biography of the editor. Discpad 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'd need content here.  Right now this is just a list of external links.  Wikipedia is meant for encyclopedia articles, not lists of links.  Friday (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Friday, this is clearly not enough for a seperate page - merge and redirect. — Swpb talk contribs 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's quite a false analogy – Bill Keller and New York Times clearly each contain significant content, independently of each other. — Swpb talk contribs 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:AllBusiness.com

message: This article conforms to the notability guidelines:
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both:
* independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and
* reliable.
There is coverage from the NY Times, a weekly column in the San Francisco Chronicle, CNet, a rather in-depth article from Business Journal, ClickZ, and AdWeek. I would have added more but it would have cluttered up the page. Let me know if you would like more sources.
Monkeythumpa 20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:CorningWare

message: "According to a 12-year-old posting from someone who appeared to be associated with Corning,"
I found this in the article; it seems to have been placed there from the very beginning, but it seems out of place... If it isn't vandalism, it should be revised to make it clearer what it is talking about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.108.168 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this?

message: The company website says that the name is CorningWare, not Corningware. 220.227.179.4 08:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been renamed from Corningware to CorningWare as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves

message: The 840 degree thermal shock statement needs a time parameter associated with it, not just 840 change in temperature.
71.139.160.159 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermal shock 
Talk:Acute alcohol intoxication

message: "The condition is frequently found in either young people who are being exposed to commonly available alcoholic beverages like beer, wine, and distilled liquor for the first time, and don't know their limits, or by people suffering from alcoholism who ingest much more than they usually do."
Perhaps somebody might disagree with me, but I'm of the opinion, that the is mostly found in people who ingest much more than they usually do. The reason for the much more does vary from person to person. They don't have to be suffering from alcoholism. --89.55.189.62 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Epidemiology

message: As the opening sentence states, I think it makes a lot of sense to break this out from drunkenness, especially considering this was originally simply set up as a redirect.
:I don't know about this.  In general, I think that AAI is just a polite word for drunk.  It isn't caused by drunkenness; it is drunkenness.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Drunkenness that is severe enough to cause significant unwellbeing? JFW | T@lk 05:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Lay people usually think of drunkenness as something one does voluntarily, and repeatedly. As a physician, I think of this as a medical emergency. Having the separate listing means that someday, somewhere, some college kid will likely save a friend's life because they "get" the seriousness noted in this article.--Proney (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Drunk vs AAI

message: This article reaches C class in its current state.  To rise to B class, it needs many, many more sources (college-level (and higher) textbooks and major review papers being the ideal sources) and rather more complete information.
I'd like to see more about definitions and classifications (just how high is "too high" on a tox screen?), whether adjustments need to be taken into account for a severe chronic abuser, and generally just more about the condition in general.  Its relationship to binge drinking and alcoholism and drunkenness (especially if we decide against the merge) might be interesting.  In the absence of tox tests, are there signs that might differentiate between "kind of drunk" and "AAI"?  Do different cultures or countries deal with this differently?  For example, our local police force apparently takes all inebriated people to the hospital emergency room, but I understand that other places have a drunk tank with a nurse that does an assessment, and only people with really serious medical issues end up in the emergency room.
Also, in an ideal world it would continue to be more prose/descriptive instead of list-oriented -- but I see that you're already making significant progress in that direction as you expand and explain various steps.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: this section should be looked over by a competent editor, please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trem (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathophysiology
Talk:Perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease

message: I might suggest that this article be subsumed in an article entitled Group B Streptococcal disease or Group B streptococcal infection with a subheading for perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease. That would be an appropriate place to move some of the information from the Group B streptococcus page (parts that don't properly just refer to properties of the organism itself  that is) CharlusIngus 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:San Diego Police Department

message: This article can eaisly be improved by formatting it after the Los Angeles Police Department article. Althepal 03:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve

message: This article does not have the adequate amount of information to "survive on its own." Anyway, references must be found. JC ·  Xbox ·  Talk ·  Contributions 03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[San Diego Police Department Cadet]] 

message: Multiple people (or at least ip addresses) from the SDPD have been found covering up police misconduct in this article.
This behavior probably doesn't qualify as "misconduct" as there's nothing illegal about it nor is it probably even against department so it really doesn't belong in the misconduct section.  But it was morally controversial enough and violates wikipedia's guidelines such that it was newsworthy and could probably be best described as a "scandal".  
Should there be a new section for "scandals"?  
Or maybe the existing section should be updated to be something like "Misconduct and other scandals"??
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bob drobbs, I added this incident to the Misconduct section earlier today not because edits to Wikipedia from SFPD computers constitute misconduct, but because the edits—as reported by U-T San Diego—directly relate to this section of our article. Unless there are further developments that cumulatively represent an actual "scandal," I oppose creating a new section or renaming the present one. JohnValeron (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue, given the size of the article it has undue weight. I have expanded the minuscule history section, but the misconduct section, as well as the service dog section, appear to fall under WP:CRIT IMHO. The section can be better summarized, and more neutrally worded. While it is verified that these issues have happened a force that has had over a century of history and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of officers shouldn't be primarily about the few dozen whom did not live up to the high standards we expect of them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Editing Scandal - Noteworthy, but probably not misconduct 

message: This section while meeting WP:VER does not link sources, which would be helpful for any reader. That being said, it is heavily weighted in this article. While it is verifiable, it should be reduced or better yet the article expanded so it does not give an undue appearance that the only notable events that the organization which is the subject of the article is involved in.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconduct section 

message: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/17/sdpd-wikipedia-edits-remove-misconduct/ -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia edits came from within SDPD 

message: IMHO, it does not appear to meet WP:PERSISTENCE, and also see WP:NOTNEWS, I will tag the section accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Dog section
Talk:Colossus (novel)

message: As-written, this reads more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedia article: Man creates the ultimate machine... COLOSSUS, and it assumes responsibility for the defence of the free world... but the Russians have developed a near relative, the GUARDIAN... both possessed of unforeseen and frightening side effects... the machines prove capable of free thought... and threats. 66.17.118.195 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it is promotional. It's the wording on the back cover of the book. Needs someone who remembers the story well enough to write a plot summary. Winnow 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

message: I remember talking to my father about this book.  We were wondering whether the intelligence agencies would be able to make the problems seem unimportant.  It seemed like the best solution was to make sure that reality had things that were similar to the things in this book.
In retrospect, it seems that reality has very many similarities to the world of Colossus.
"Make it so"
Frizb (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it so 

message: Was it known in the first book that Dr. Fisher was a spy?  I just started reading "Fall of Colossus" and thought it was not revealed until then.  Could easily be wrong on that point.  My copy is not at my side, will take a look and revise if needed. (p. 191 in the ebook “One small thing—well, it seems small relatively—the Russian list of agents came in this morning. Dr. Fisher’s name is on it.”) SteveJEsposito (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters and Plot