lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Aquaretic

message: I've tagged this article for deletion for a number of reasons:
*Most importantly, aquaretic is almost never used as a noun. It's usage is much more similiar to that of natriuretic (an adjective) than diuretic. As a result I believe it merits a wiktionary definition, but not a wikipedia article.
*As you guys have already pointed out, the current article content is both unverified and apparently inaccurate. I don't claim to be an expert, but the increased renal perfusion -> increased GFR -> increased H2O loss argument seems very unlikely without some kind of interference with ADH or some additional diuretic effect in the distal tubule/collecting duct.
*With the greatest respect to its original author, I do not believe there is any content currently in the article worth preserving. If you disagree, however, perhaps it would be better merged into the diuresis article? Or used in the creation of a new aquaresis article?
I believe this meets some of the criteria for deletion.  Thebagman (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion 

message: This doesn't make sense. I don't have access to the cited source, so I can't check it. Given the title (Herbal Medicinals: A Clinician's Guide), they were probably referring to herbals, but even this seems strange. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For me it doesn't make sense either, and the only aquaretic approved for patient use (ie. tolvaptan) does not cause any increase in blood pressure as far as the scientific literature is concerned. Someone should change that sentence in the article. The Pathologist (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase blood pressure?
Talk:Equisetum palustre

message: Hello!
I noticed some information on the description section which were not cited and sounded odd in general, so I have removed them and added sources. In case someone would disagree with this, I will add the original text that has been modified here for transparency and add comments [like this]:
"Equisetum palustre is a perennial cryptophyte [I've never heard of cryptophytes and although there is a link to a wiki page about it, I could not find any sources that were not citing wiki page on the matter, word for word. The only information I found that also should debunk this is that cryptophyte/cryptomonads are a group of algae, which I'm pretty sure horsetails are not part of. Hence, I added what my source says; that they are a pteridophyte], growing between 10 and 50 centimeters (4" to 20") [differed a bit from my source and there was no citation, so added my source's size], in rare cases up to one meter (3'). Its fertile shoots, which carry ears, are evergreen [firstly, horsetails do not have ears; wheat and maize do, this is where the grains or kernels develop. Second, this horsetail is not considered evergreen, because it does not have leaves that persist throughout the year, instead perennial (herbaceous) pteridophyte is a more accurate description according to my source] and shaped like the sterile shoots. The rough, furrowed stem is one to three mm in diameter with usually eight to ten ribs, in rare cases, four to 12. It contains whorled branches. The tight-fitting sheaths end in four to 12 teeth. The lower sheaths are dark brown and much shorter than the sheaths of the main shoot. The central and vallecular canals are about the same size, but the carinal channels are much smaller. The central channels measure about one sixth of the diameter of the stem.
The spores are spread by the wind (anemochory) and have four long ribbon-like structures attached to them. They sit on strobili which are rounded on the top. Marsh horsetails often form subterranean runners and tubers [not sure if they form tubers, changed to rhizomes], with which they also can proliferate vegetatively."
If the edits do not make sense, feel free to educate me! I'm by no means a professional botanist, just enjoy reading about plants and doing this type of editing. :)
Sniiiif (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description section
Talk:Boscia albitrunca

message: I've removed the attention=yes from the WikiProject Plants template.  Various things have been cleaned up since it was added, and I did some wikification.  Because  had some history of copyvios (specifically, copy-pasting copyrighted text with the intention of rewriting it later), I did a google search on a few phrases from the article and didn't find any non-wikipedia hits.  So I don't see any evidence of problems here. Kingdon 02:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing attention=yes 
Talk:Sponge grenade

message: The line near the bottom, "Muzzle velocity at 50 meters is 200 feet per second" seems to be self-contradicting, as muzzle velocity should be at the muzzle (0 meters), or conversely at 50 meters it would just be projectile velocity.
However, I do not know which of these the 200fps refers to, so I didn't change the article.
-Nirvelli 06:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle velocity 

message: Are these the same as the "Flash Balls" usually made of rubber or condensed foam used in France? Are they the same as the B&T "Foam Projectiles" (IMO a misleading euphemism, they're not Nerf balls or silly string) used in Catalonia? --46.114.35.69 (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash balls
Talk:Cox–Ingersoll–Ross model

message: In Germany this process is known as "Wurzel-Diffusionsprozess" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wurzel-Diffusionsprozess, so please Link this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.40.85.124 (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German - Link 

message: The future equation is inconsistent with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIR_process.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacques Burrus (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future equation
Talk:Jason Della Rocca

message: So far all I can see is that he has been director of a probably notable organisation and might have originated a controversial phrase.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: So far we have only a citation that he used this phrase, not that he coined it.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "massacre chaser" 
Talk:Hull–White model

message: Could one rewrite "if r is currently" into "if r(t) is"? The benefit would be clearness which term from the formula is ment. Also i.m.o. "the change in r" could bei "the change in r(t)"  or "dr(t)". Another possibility would be to fill into the sentence "for a given point in time t. Greetings, --Qaswed-Ger (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hull–White_model#Analysis_of_the_one-factor_model|Analysis of the one-factor model]] 
Talk:Vasicek model

message: what are the typical a, b, and sigma? 76.69.254.51 (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how they are estimated, i.e. whether they are estimated historically or calibrated by inverting option prices in the Hull White extension. Depending also on the moment the parameters can differ dramatically and take completely different ranges of values, especially for sigma and a. But as a first rule of thumb r_0 should be the current short term as set by central banks, b shouldn't be too different from a long maturity swap rate, and sigma and a are the most difficult to calibrate then. I think James and Webber and also Brigo and Mercurio in their books discuss this. Piloter (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: typical parameters

message: what's wrong with a negative interest rate being produced by the model? Switzerland had a negative interest rate in the past. It still made sense for people to get out of other less-attractive currencies at the time, and in effect, be charged a percentage for having their money 'minded' (like in the early days of banking) - the investors still came out better at the end of the year compared to staying in the original currency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.153.4 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: negative interest rate

message: In the section Details the remark about the long term variance appears two times in only slightly different words and with  no addional value for the understanding. Maybe someone should rewrite this part. 193.22.0.14 (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Long term variance
Talk:Short-rate model

message: should the article be called "interest rate model", and "short rate model" as one section of it? Jackzhp (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: and combine with HJM article etc...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest to seperate short-rate and short-rate model into own articles. --Qaswed-Ger (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: title
Talk:Sand volcano

message: What is a linear sand blow? 24.26.128.185 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Linear'' Sand Blow 

message: The "sand volcano" article has been merged into the "sand boil" article and "sand volcano" now redirects to "sand boil". This seems to me to be a case of "the tail wagging the dog". A Google search indicates to me that the more common term is "sand volcano" (62,000 versus 12,000 hits). I suggest a better merger would be to revert the current merger then put the "sand boil" text into the "sand volcano" article, and redirect "sand boil" to "sand volcano". GeoWriter (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[Sand boil]]
Talk:Chuck Ruff

message: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Charles F.C. Ruff. 
Do it, it this the same person. one should be a linked. Telecine Guy 07:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made this into a disambiguation page for the attorney and the rock drummer. KConWiki (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Vernon Story

message: This is a preliminary posting. I will make it fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines as soon as possible. I am the Son-in-Law of this Jazz musician and believe all of the information that I have posted to be correct, but I hope that family members, colleagues and fans will post additions and (if necessary) corrections. Leon Guzenda.
Lguzenda 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Chen model

message: The 'Chen model' is totally unknown to theorists and practitioners in quantitative finance.
It is a trivial extension of known models.
This is a fake article probably set up by Chen for publicity purposes.
I think it should be deleted.
The Chen model was not "the first stochastic mean and stochastic volatility model".  The Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross working paper had single factor and multiple factor models with stochastic mean and stochastic volatility in 1977.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.110.185 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

message: It looks like a three-factor model, not a 1 factor model  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.244.180 (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The said factor is probably the Brownian motion with increments dWt. That is, just one source of randomness (the same Brownian motion everywhere) - one factor AdamSmithee 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 factor 

message: For the uninitiated can someone please explain in everyday language what this means, why it is important, to what are the equations applied and what is the significance and value of the results. Perhaps one or more worked examples might help. Velela (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: same feeling. is this model stable? any known estimated parameters. Jackzhp (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: +1. A readily understandable overview would be very welcome --New Thought (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?
Talk:Vitrinite

message: Our article is a pretty good start, but since I, a professional geologist with some experience in hydrocarbons, was struggling a bit to understand it, it's fair to say that a non-technical reader is going to be wondering what the hell this is all about. Forex, WTH's " Rock-Eval Tmax"?? On my list, but really needs a coal/oil guy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs expansion and clearer writing
Talk:Plauderville station

message: I am the one who started the Plauderville station article months ago as a stub, saying that the station is located in Saddle Brook, New Jersey. When I came back to the Plauderville station article today, it said that the station is in Garfield. However, the truth is that the station is actually in Saddle Brook, but very near the Garfield town line, so therefore I have made the changes. NHRHS2010 Talk  16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found out that the station is right on the town border. NHRHS2010 Talk  00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Aston Martin Bulldog

message: I see that there is no mention of the man who built the body in a small workshop in Shenley Brook End next to my workshop. I watched this being welded and shaped by hand over about six months by a master craftsman called Roy Fossy who was an ex-Aston man from the Newport Pagnell factory and Lived in Shenley Church End, this was all done hush hush and was taken after he finished his work the car was taken away very secretly to the factory in Newport Pagnell for completion.  Denis in Thailand (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

message: Article on the Top Gear website here. Miyagawa (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for expansion
Talk:ChessCafe.com

message: I removed the prod tag because I think this site is one of the most well-known chess publishing sites on the internet. It is therefore of comparible notability to a well-known journal. The authors who provide content to chesscafe include the likes of Yasser Seirawan, Susan Polgar, and the well known arbiter Geurt Gijssen (who was arbitrator in the Kramnik-Topalov world championship match last year). With so many big names on the site, and with books based on the site receiving independent reviews, for example here, I think this page is justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Prod}} removed 
Talk:Gendered division of labour

message: Current article seems reliant on only one source? Andycjp 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Not to be too criticial of someone elses work, or to go too feministy but I think this article is a good candidate for a rewrite or at least serious rephrasing. The first sentence was somewhat alarming- what is "appropriate...for men and women" has so many possible conotations which could not be interpreted as acceptable for NPOV or acceptable for an encylopedia. Does that mean there is work which is inapropriate for each gender too? I also have NO idea how the last sentence is relevant to the subject. This article is really concerning to me, and perhaps anyone with any sort of knowledge on this topic can help. 71.219.59.103 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: This article is just communist agitprop. It needs to be rewritten in a neutral point of view or deleted. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is essentially a fork of occupational segregation and should redirect there. MRSC • Talk 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite or delete
Talk:Respiratory disease

message: Hello, what is the scope of this article? Should it include systemic diseases that affect the lungs, such as alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency and cystic fibrosis? --Kyoko 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in the A1AT and cystic fibrosis (as well as a bit of other comment here and there) Orinoco-w (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The main problem with this article is that it is so very broad. I don't think it should be trying to give the entire scope of genetic disorders of the lung or COPD but really should give a quick overall summary of each topic and point to more specific sections. I've tried to be general with Causes (I have a surgical sieve I resort to if I'm stuck: VITAMIN CDEF - Vascular, Infective/Inflammatory, Trauma, Autoimmune, Metabolic, Idiopathic/Iatrogenic, Neoplastic, Congenital, Developmental, Environmental, Functional/Fake) and tried to include a bit of everything. Orinoco-w (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Do we really want to have the spirometry/PFT blah about PEFR, FEV1/FVC etc in this article? Shouldn't it be all in the main COPD article? If this is the case, I can probably chop out that bit and leave it as a general descriptor here. Similar for the Restrictive Lung Disease bit. Orinoco-w (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that describing spirometry in depth is a little to specific for this article. I believe that only the general descriptor is necessary in this article, being a very nonspecific article. Tyrol5  [Talk] 14:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope of article? 

message: Cholera 143.44.165.146 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health
Talk:Monsters of the Midway

message: I removed the following unreferenced paragraph, which I believe is incorrect:
:The team, which has now become the NFL's Arizona Cardinals, was originally the Racine Normals (named for the street on the South Side of Chicago where they played; the team eventually became the Chicago Cardinals), received their first uniforms as hand-me-downs from the University of Chicago. The faded maroon was fancied by the club's president to be a "cardinal" red color, so the team adopted "Cardinals" as its nickname. Through the years, the Cardinals were typically overshadowed by the Bears. Had the Chicago Cardinals enjoyed the success of their crosstown rivals, perhaps they would have inherited the nickname "Monsters" from the Maroons and not just their jerseys.
I think this is incorrect because the Chicago Cardinals and the Chicago Bears were two separate teams.  The article makes clear that "Monsters of Midway" was applied to the Bears; it therefore could not have been applied (simultaneously) to the Cardinals.  And the Cardinals were a losing team while in Chicago, hardly "Monsters".  (I'm assuming good faith here; arguably this paragraph was deliberate vandalism.)  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicago Cardinals
Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game

message: The following revision from 2016 appears to have mangled two paragraphs in the game discussion, resulting in a nonsense sentence. 
Revision:
(cur | prev) 00:22, 4 January 2016 2601:602:c102:31f0:b8e8:af8b:215:9b11 (talk) . . (11,254 bytes) (-1,021) . . (undo)
Nonsense sentence:
"New York responded with a drive in which a 30 yard run ball to Newman who then passed it back to Strong for a touchdown. "
Diff the 4 Jan 2016 edit against the previous revision, and you see a much better description of the game action. I suggest reverting the edit in question, which does not appear to provide any value.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.26.5.48 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangled paragraph 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Clear proper noun, even if un-creatively named so it's difficult to distinguish from a mere descriptive phrase. You know how one makes such a distinction? Capitalization of proper nouns. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 May 2024
Talk:Třinec

message: Please see Prague, Chicago and Template_talk:Infobox_Settlement. Template says "native_name - for cities whose native name is not in English". Trzyniec is not English name nor native name. --mj41 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read § 29 odst. 2 zákona 128/2000 Sb. . There is not that official name is also Trziniec. It is only about translations. Per  (2001) they are 17% Poles.  --mj41 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you have read the outdated version. Read the official government document at . Trzyniec is also the second official name which can be used in the dealings with the government of the town. I am surprised you didn't know that when you live there and have Polish surname, too. P.S. And it is not "about translations", Trzyniec is older name for this town than Třinec by the way. - Darwinek 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I finished this edit war. I think it is not useful to have two official names. My name is not Polish, it is only adapted to English keyboard :-). Yes, I know that Trzyniec is older name. But this is about using Infobox properly. --mj41 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have nothing personal to you. I just think I understand the "bilingualism" term a bit better. You think it is not useful to have two official names but it seems Czech lawgivers think the other way :). Cheers. - Darwinek 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you are not right and that there is only one official name - Třinec. Trzyniec is allowed name, but not official. I think that version with Trzyniec in other_name  was the best we have. Try fultext on portal.gov.cz there is nothing as Trzyniec. --mj41 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox native_name 

message: Per :cs:Třinec and per discussions here and on :cs:Diskuse:Třinec there is no evidence that Třinec's second official name is Trzyniec. Seem like all in :Template:Polish municipalities in the Czech Republic has same issue. We should find consensus and synchronize Czech and English Wikipedia. --mj41 (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It remains unclear, as to the question if it is the second official name according to the Czech law. However, from the Czech Republic legislative concerning the minority rights, Polish names of the "Polish municipalities" are recognized by the Czech government. - Darwinek (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Anyways, I changed the parameter to "other_name" to avoid possible ambiguity or controversy. By the way, the article would benefit from some content expansion. - Darwinek (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox official_name