lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ananke

message: This article has no sources at all. ICE77 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources missing 

message: Stanislaw Lem falls under "Ananke in literature" but Philip K. Dick falls under "Ananke in popular culture"? That's weirdly arbitrary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunn (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature vs. popular culture 

message: 100.36.49.77 added "In C. A. Higgins's debut 2015 science fiction novel, Lightless, the cutting edge military space ship is named Ananke. The Ananke also features in the second book of the trilogy, 2016's Supernova.", which was removed. Sounds perfectly acceptable to me. Why was it removed, might I ask? 
Deamonpen (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Higgins

message: In the article history, I see that an edit was made to remove "also spelled Anangke, Anance, or Anagke". The comment for the edit says "n before γ, κ, ξ, χ as per WP:GREEK". The user making the edit was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Omnipaedista .
Whether or not the alternative spellings are correct Greek, it is a fact that many scholarly articles (I currently count ~257 in Google Scholar ["anagke" plato]) do use the spelling "anagke". And at least one published book uses the "anagke" spelling: Inventing the Universe: Plato's Timaeus, the Big Bang, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge .
In fact, I was reading such an article and I wanted to confirm that "anagke" and "ananke" were indeed the same concept. Wikipedia used to provide this useful information, but now it doesn't. Why?
If there is no good reason for the removal, could someone please reinsert the deleted text? I'm happy to do it if others agree to the change.
PS I didn't know if it is proper etiquette to contact the person who made the edit directly, so I thought I would ask here first.
Nick (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were the alternative spellings of "ananke" removed?
Talk:Feynman checkerboard

message: I have added some history and context that is familiar to me, but I think the Chessboard model has been quietly worked on by many people, so I am sure the current references could be expanded to gather a more complete picture.  I disagree with the classification that the importance of the model is low. The model is not very well known and is not immediately useful for calculation.  However it is unique in its potential to look in detail at the origin of the Dirac equation. Hontologicus (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent additions, these greatly improve the article. I think we can remove the stub status by now. The classification importance = low is subjective, but perhaps not too far off as there is no known 3+1D analog to this elegant 1+1D model. 77.251.148.13 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK thanks! I hope the additions will encourage interested parties to explore the model and add references to additional work. Hontologicus (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Closure operator on a set

message: This article started its life as an article on consequence operators. The old talk page is Talk:Consequence operator. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of this page 

message: I suggest merging closure operator and closure operator on a set. Personally I think that it is best if the article starts with closure operators on a set. The generalisation to partially ordered sets is often not needed, and it is potentially confusing. Therefore my preference would be to merge closure operator into closure operator on a set and then rename to closure operator. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After more than a month with no reaction I have gone ahead and merged the two articles. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Armageddon Empires

message: I have been thinking this one over, but since there is no retail version so to speak, I don't think we can get some box art, so I think our best bet is if we can get a high quality version from cyptic comet themselves.--Kerotan-Have a nice day :) 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A screenshot of the title screen is fine and usual if no retail box exists, there's one right here. Someoneanother 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On box art/application icon
Talk:Dendrobium nobile

message: The fotograph is certainly not D. nobile, but one of its hybrids.--80.30.188.147 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Np-chart

message: Equation should read:
n*pbar +/- 3*sqrt(n*pbar*(1-pbar))
:Thank you, well spotted. (Note that you can sign your posts by placing four tildes.) -- Jayen466 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

message: I've removed the following text that had been added by an IP:
--------------
Notice that the using the Central limit theorem approximation is wrong in most cases. The chance that a process will have a sample size big enough and a percentage of defects big enough in order to pass the n*p>5 approximation test is not very big. 
In order to calculate Control limits correctly, one must choose an α =1-P(LCL < Xi < UCL/μ=n•p) where Xi = pi•n and extract the control limits using this formula.
----------------
This does not seem to be the mainstream position on how to calculate the control limits; at the very least, it is likely to be contentious and should be backed up by a reliable source. JN466 23:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed
Talk:Frank Erickson

message: This article is very favorable of the subject. For example:
"Additionally, it is a little-known fact that many of Erickson's profits went to charity. Along with many other ventures, he was a major contributor to the construction of a children's hospital in NYC. His image was bashed by the media because of supposed connections with the mob. These allegations were never proven."
Saying that Erickson was "bashed" by the media is neither the most eloquent nor the most even-handed description, to say the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.93.184 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: If someone has disputed the neutrality of the article, please state your objection. I have edited the text multiple times in order to clear up the issue of "neutrality." The article is scrupulously referenced. If there is no response for one month (today 2/5/08), I'll assume there is no issue and remove the neutrality exception - assuming I can.216.162.26.193 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Timeline of Pakistani history (1947–present)

message: Nice notes👍👍 42.201.249.93 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plz inform current events 

message: Quiz compition aboit pakistan history 182.186.214.177 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan history 2000 to 2022 

message: I love my country my country Pakistan I love you 175.107.212.157 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan
Talk:Useless Loop, Western Australia

message: Any idea where the very unusual name originates?  I think it would be worth mentioning. --SmilingBoy (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: A few weasel wordds claims about the salt - does not make the article a candidate for the advert tag SatuSuro 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert

message: This article is a bit short I think e.g. It doesn't say anything about useless loop's population 110.20.130.141 (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: Soooo, what exactly is Useless Loop? Is it a town? A landmark? A geophysical feature or location? The article as it is starts by saying where Useless Loop is but says nothign about what it is?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.121.123 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it???
Talk:Windows Server 7

message: I'm not finding any real evidence that this product is codenamed Windows Server 7, or that it will be released in 2010. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I haven't found any evidence that this release will be 64-bit only.  Yes, Microsoft is on the record as saying that Windows Server 2008 is the final 32-bit operating system.  However, they are also on the record as saying that there will be a "Release 2" of Windows Server 2008, that will be 32-bit.  Since we don't know if "Windows Server 7" is that "R2" release (and, if I may be excused a little bit of WP:OR here, it's worth noting that the Windows 7 M1 release has a version number of 6.1, not 7.0, so.....), we can't authoritatively state one way or the other if this release will be 64-bit only.   -/- Warren 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: This blog post was recently made by a verifiable Microsoft employee and pulled shortly after, luckily the google cache caught it: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E3ARE2GZOWYJ:imav8n.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/welcome-windows-server-7-here-we-go-again/+http://imav8n.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/welcome-windows-server-7-here-we-go-again/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
check it out at let me know if you think there is anything else worth adding (this is also the original source for the build number thats been added to the article already)
(Blog: http://imav8n.wordpress.com/)
-- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Content
Talk:Anastigmat

message: Most modern lenses are close to being anastigmatic by old standards. Still the sagittal and meridional focusing "planes" (they tend to be complex curves aproximating a plane) are distinct, and that shows in the MTF charts. Some lenses suffer more from this aberration than others. For example, from my personal experience the 18-50 f/2.8 EX from Sigma is a lens that must be focused between those planes or otherwise will produce very sharp images in the center but not at all in the edges. If properly focused it is very sharp all over, since astigmatism gets masked. I've also found many reports complaining about "back focusing" and "front focusing" are really astigmatism. That's why I corrected the article. Rnbc (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Newsroom use

message: According to the folk at language log ( ), the entire Olla podrida thing is an outright forgery: Reader Jim Gordon wondered about this and emailed the author of the article. Her response: she and her consultants and editors were aware of the correct name and etymology but thought that some readers might be put off by the notion of rotten food, so they changed the name a little and made up a fake etymology. It seems clear that they were not trying to deceive anyone with evil intent, but I am still taken aback that a respectable newspaper would make up a fake name and etymology. Circeus (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, along the lines of how the other blogger covering this characterized his own gut reaction, some of that tends a bit toward hyperbolic outrage. As you can see if you read the actual Times piece, the etymology was not made up by the reporter but was quoted from a source you'd expect to be knowledgeable about this cuisine. And I'm inclined to credit the Times response more when quoted exactly than when filtered through multiple retellings with a view to proving a point, as the passage above does. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Auge

message: Hey! On this page you can´t understand anything! What´s that terrible mess with the words there? Correct it, whoever did it! It´s terrible!
Mel and Amy Patterson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.73.201 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:WGES-FM

message: This article was recently redirected to WGNK with comments that there was a callsign change, FCC records for WGNK do not show WGES in its history.  WGES no longer appears in FCC database which may indicate that the station is off the air.--RadioFan (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  off the air
Talk:Old Owl

message: The article refers to "chloria" as a possible cause. Shouldn't that be cholera? --ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it appears to be a typo.  I'll make the correction.  Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death
Talk:Dunedin Hospital

message: Number of beds: probably not 350??? Anyone knows?
Inainai (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 388 beds and 3000 staff according to DHB's own website. -- 131.203.242.130 (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Beds

message: All signage and DHB documents only refer to the hospital as Dunedin Hospital - the 'public' was dropped from the name some long time ago. Propose to move this to Dunedin Hospital. -- 131.203.242.130 (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Hi..
Can someone insert a PAGE redirection for the search result of:
Dunedin Hospital (as it is incorrectly searched as such .. by people who DO NOT KNOW .. it's actual FULL title)>
Reason:
Why have people reach a PAGE DOES NOT EXIST -- when Dunedin Hospital exists ON THE GROUND - in Otago, NZ, plus is colloquially called Dunedin Hospital.. and is a basic "search" form, for those who DO NOT KNOW -- the full "official title"..?
ie: searching for ?
DUNEDIN HOSPITAL, results in a dead page saying..
PAGE DOES NOT EXIST .. try "all" of these other suggetions..
When it would be so"easy" for the page result to "simply" auto-redirect, into the correct wiki page of:
Dunedin PUBLIC hospital.
Cheers.
Ask by a "periodic wiki client" ..
115.188.57.151 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia needs a redirection insert - for: DUNEDIN HOSPITAL (page doesn't exist), to redirect it to the correct "named" page of Dunedin PUBLIC Hospital (which does exist)
Talk:Sputter Gun

message: This article seems to be egregiously wrong in claims about ATF’s statements and findings. ATF absolutely did classify the “sputter gun” as a machine gun and York’s attempts to fight that classification resulted in multiple court rulings that found the ATF acted within their powers when doing so . 2603:8080:E500:161F:B44A:34B0:4732:B240 (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe Errors

message: The entire thing comes from the citation which is a blog. Your Glutes (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifted straight from the citation source
Talk:Glass Nickel Pizza Company

message: The article does read somewhat like an advert and has been tagged as such by User:Aecis. I have done what I can to clean it up and wikify it, but I suggest that the author put some more work into making the tone more encyclopedic. Read some other restaurant articles (see List of major restaurant chains in the United States) for examples. —Travistalk 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see WP:PEACOCK in reference to several terms in the article: “award winning”, “famous”, “countless awards” —Travistalk 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: On first glance, this looks like one of thousands of non-notable local restaurant chains. However, the company appears to be at the forefront of the use of alternative fueled and hybrid delivery vehicles and the use of energy-saving features in their restaurants. No, they’re not notable in the way Domino's is, but they appear to be notable in their own way. —Travistalk 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This isn't an advertisement.  I don't work for the glass nickel, I just love their pizza and they donate lots of food to my organization on a regular basis, so im making a page for them.  Danielmeter (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From "Talk:Glass nickel"
Talk:Battle of Kelja

message: Excellent article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.133.242 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]]
Talk:Raymond Jacobs

message: Thanks for creating the article.  I always thought he deserved one.  Could someone take the picture from Jacobs' link which he says clearly shows his face as the radio operator.  It's fair use as it is a government picture.  I think it would illustrate the article nicely.  I would, but am a Luddite when it comes to uploading pics, etc.  Thanks.  Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good to have an article 
Talk:Secretary of State for Wales

message: Youtube clip of John Redwood miming the national anthem
I wanted to include a link to a Youtube clip of John Redwood miming the National Anthem. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc I think it is valide to add this link because it is (1)accessible to the reader (b) it is relevant to the content of the article (useful, helpful, informative, factual, etc.) and(c) it is a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link. However when I added the link it automatically got reverted.128.122.242.66 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Artiodactyla

message: ??? Pueblo89 (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you confused about? Ddum5347 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpacas, guanacos and others extinct  

message: Fix "Dicolytes" to "Dicotyles" 192.236.64.165 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022
Talk:Stieglitz rearrangement

message: Very nice article. Although I am not a chemist, I enjoyed reading it. 
I added some wikipedia links to chemical reagents that are mentioned in the article. Tk3419 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I also really liked the article - especially the mechanistic details. In the section Stieglitz rearrangement of azides a reaction scheme could improve the comprehensibility of the description because at the moment the information in the text is quite dense and requires a lot of concentration to follow it. --Robert Rauschen (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add reaction scheme for azides
Talk:Elachorbis subtatei

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Elachorbis diaphana

message: As the article is linked to another (the genus page) it is not an orphan, so I will remove the orphan tag. GrahamBould (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Christopher Hartley

message: Why is there not more news on the supposed visit by members of Congress? ~ UBeR (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont'know. The source quoted in the article does not give the names of the delegation members. I would appreciate if someone checked it out.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Congresspeople

message: I've added documents from a recent court filing by Bishop Ozoria that describe Father Hartley's departure in detail.  Let me know if it's overboard - I tend to be long winded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperclip26 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Departure from DR
Talk:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  -- — CactusWriter | needles 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed