lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Hastenbeck

message: sources used:
* [1] http://www.miniatures.de/html/ger/campaigns/1757-hastenbeck.html   
* [2] http://www.preussenweb.de/kriegb.htm (german)
* [3] http://www.preussenweb.de/kriege2.htm (german)
* [4] http://www.hameln.com/rathaus/politik/ortschaften.htm  (german)
: => Hastenbeck completely burned down during the battle / (Hastenbeck is southeast of Hameln)
* [5] http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mcnelly/vbg/scenarios/hastenbeck_1757.htm
problems:
* [2] claims that the Hanoverian Army of Observation had a strength of 47.000 men (27.000 from Hanover, 12.000 from Hesse, 6.000 from Brunswick, 22 heavy canons) while [3] says that the HAoO had alltogether 36.000 men (31.000 infantry, 5.000 cavalry, 28 canons). Well, the numbers are not that important, nevertheless it is a difference of almost 40%. 
* [5] gives the following numbers: "Cumberland was heavily outnumbered, with only 35,000 men and 28 heavy guns versus D'Estrees' 60,000 men and 68 heavy guns"
* while I found that the river Weser can be as low as 80 cm, I found no evidence that at this particular time the river was really that low. At least I can't exclude that the French did not use boats to cross the river.
----
Regarding use of "20,000" vs. "20.000", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).  And, I think those battles named at the end of the first (real) paragraph might be Prague and Cologne (Köln)?  I think we use the French name for Cologne more than the German one. And I think we would just say "Marshall" for "Maréchal". -- JohnOwens 01:32 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
:Thanks for the pointer about the number format and your help :-) "Prag" indeed should be "Prague", I have fixed this.  Kolin is very different from Köln (Kolin it is part of Bohemia). I don't know about the "Marshall" thing, probably the English expression is better. mkrohn 02:02 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
----
Moved random incomplete notes here from the entry (is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a scratchpad?) ThreeTrees 19:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Newtonian physics

message: Can probably be merged with Classical mechanics. -- looxix 01:32 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
: seconded. -- Tarquin 12:50 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::It can't be merged with classical mechanics since classical mechanics is different than Newtonian physics. The classical mechanics contains relativity (see Landau and Lifshitz, The classical theory of fields) while Newtonian physics doesn't. Jim 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that the term "classical mechanics" as meaning a non-quantum theory is a change from its usage when I went to school, when the relativity was called a "classical" theory but "classical mechanics" meant just "Newtonian physics".  However, that is not my concern now.  Instead, you should read classical mechanics which deals with the distinction very well in its introduction.  Because of that, you are adding no value here, but instead are making the reader hit another link to find out what Newtonian mechanics is all about, and even to get a better description of the distinction between the terms.  There truly is no need for a stub here. --EMS | Talk 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Proteinoid

message: Looking at the Fox papers, I see that he and Pappelis do propose that the protocells are alive, and even propose a new domain of life for them.  Looking at Fox's paper in Fox SW. "Synthesis of life in the lab? Defining a protoliving system. Quarterly Review of Biology, 1991 Jun, 66(2):181-5.
"The synthesis of a living system in the lab has been judged by a
number of critics as partly attained by the proteinoid microsphere because of
its primitive properties of metabolism, growth, and reproduction. These same
critics, however, judge the organism as not alive, or as being 50 to 75
percent alive (Baltscheffsky and Jurka, 1984), owing to the absence of a
nucleic acid genetic coding mechanism. ... Berra
(1990, p. 75) has commented on other difficulties in defining a protoliving
system. In Berra's opinion, metabolism, reproduction, responsiveness to
stimuli, and cellularity constitute or describe aliveness. These properties
characterize proteinoid microspheres." 
So, the question arises whether Baltscheffsky and Jurka and others have manipulated the definition of "life" to exclude the protocells.
The recent "Nature" journal article located at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25530-6 has exciting new information relevant to this Wikipedia topic; I recommend that a reference be made to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.8.246 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mustafa II

message: ==huh?==
Mustafa II was an Ottoman sultan of late 17th century. Mustafa described in the previous version of this article is an Ottoman heir, who has lived in 16th century. I wrote another article for that second Mustafa and replaced this article with old information User:ErdemTuzun
Sorry about that, this Talk wasn't here yet when I put most of that back in.  I'll revert it. -- JohnOwens 10:37 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
== WHY? ==
This period of the Ottoman Empire is really important, in my opinion. You can observe the changing world order. Sadly, I'm observing that not enough data had been stored for this important period.
== Date of reign ==
According to my sources, Mustafa had been dethroned on 23 Aug. 1703, and he died on 8 Jan. 1704. The dates in this article (Dec 8 and Dec 22 respectively) have to be reviewed. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not change the dates and give the references(English scholarly sources?) for said dates?  --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: According to my sources, Mustafa had been dethroned on 23 Aug. 1703, and he died on 8 Jan. 1704. The dates in this article (Dec 8 and Dec 22 respectively) have to be reviewed. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not change the dates and give the references(English scholarly sources?) for said dates?  --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of reign 

message: User:Baburhan 1 has cited a quote from a book by Salih Gülen. I can't find much clear information on this person, but he seems to be a writer of popular history in Turkey. Searching for information on him in Turkish didn't give me any information about where he got a Ph.D or what university he is a professor in - it seems as though he isn't one, but I could be wrong. So I'm calling the cited source into question as potentially unreliable, and hoping that the editor who included it can clarify who the author of the book is. Chamboz (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book by Salih Gülen 

message: The article says Mustafa II was born on 6 February 1664 or 5 June 1664.
This is wrong.
Turkish Wikipedia says June 2.
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/II._Mustafa
Also, when writing about the siege of Novi Zrin, Evlija Celebi writes that news of the birth of Mustafa came to the army on June 13.  Thus, a birth date of June 2 is more plausible. 104.158.48.139 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate is June 2
Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word

message: Hello,
Should alternative programs that produce SVG output be mentioned here, at least in passing? Scalable graphics are great, and as far as i know not supported by MS word. Perhaps programs such as inkscape should be added to the page? It solves the $$ problem completely (unlike word), and produces nicer drawings. User A1 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inkscape
Talk:Iraq War (disambiguation)

message: Thanks to Adam Will, anonymous, Infrogmation & MyRedDice for helping to organize and maintain this important reference page. --Uncle Ed 17:46 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)
: There's an argument that says we shouldn't need it - but articles on the current Iraq war and name changes of said articles seem to breed like rabbits... Martin
----
I'd like to merge this with Gulf War (disambiguation).
----
I wikified some dates and names. Should make it easy to clarify any unknown terms.
:Yes, I think linking the years is justified in this case, since it's a major world event. Pimlottc 11:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing 

message: Someone tried to overwrite this page with a fork (text copy) of another article.  Protecting this page as a valuable pointer to wars involving Iraq. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Hey all! Of all the links to this page, it seems that Conflict in Iraq refers (almost) exclusively to this lastest conflict. Kinda ironic since its really the most generic of all the terms! What do you think about making that straight redirect to Iraq War? Although there seemed to be some redirect warring going on with it last year (see its history) maybe it's better just to let sleeping dogs lie. Ewlyahoocom 18:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Conflict in Iraq]] as redirect to [[Iraq War]]? 

message: What exactly does (see page) "Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-present, starting 1 May 2003 and Mission Accomplished " mean - 'mission accomplised' what does that mean.HappyVR 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference to a speech Bush gave on that date: he was aboard an aircraft carrier, speaking under a big banner saying "Mission Accomplished". Many consider this date as a symbolic transition between the easy coalition military victory over Saddam's Iraq and the difficult political-military struggle that has followed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning

message: So there is a Second Gulf War, which in the article calls itself the Gulf War and  Third Gulf War which in the article calls itself the second Gulf War. Where and when was the First Gulf War? This is very very confusing and doesn't make any sense.A mcmurray 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First, second and third
Talk:List of French-language authors

message: Merci, beaucoup mieux. -- JohnOwens 00:41 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
Well, this was my first edited page. I just added the dates, after doing the translation (the first article was in spanish, not in french) and I wondered if I should trim the dates to just show the year. Or is it right this way? (In that case it probably needs a little more investigation to add the day and the month to those dates that lack them.) -- Fuligen 01:39 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
Add Catherine Millet? Or not sufficiently notable? Martin 17:21, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

message: where they are? not here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.201.10 (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  magny, marbeuf
Talk:Earl Doherty/Archive 1

message: Recall that Wells is (was) a professor of German (not a professor of Classics) and that Doherty has a Classics-type degree.  From that fact alone, what would it mean to say that Doherty studied under Wells?  That Doherty took a German class from him once?  Moreover, I have been in correspondence with Doherty since 1997 and have read his book and website, and the most that he's said is that he's heard Wells speak, not that he "studied under" him.  I'm removing this; you can put it back in if you have a source to back it up. If it's controversial, I'll e-mail Doherty about it. --Peter Kirby 08:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Doherty Study under Wells? 

message: :Doherty's belief that there was no historical Jesus contrasts with the view of Rationalists, who thought of Jesus as a real person whose story has only survived in oral traditions told in the language of myth.
That's is very strange. It implies that there is some group of people called "Rationalists", all of whom have a fixed opinion on whether Jesus was historical person or not. That can't be right, unless the link should be some special class of Rationalist. In any case, I'd say that the sentence is redundant in light of the sentence that follows it:
:Currently, the position that Jesus never existed is a minority position among scholars and Doherty's arguments have not made a very strong impression on the consensus
"minority position among scholars" has sufficient impact to make the point.--Malcohol 12:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalists
Talk:Keith Holyoake

message: Is there no encyclopaedic source for his nickname "Kiwi Keith"? I believe it stems from when he was in a group with another Keith (perhaps even another Keith Holyoake) who was Australian, and it was used to distinguish him from "Ozzie Keith". And should there not be some reference to his remarkably elocuted accent, like no other contemporary New Zeaalander? --Hugh7 (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Kiwi", accent

message: Did he do anything special to get the Garter---what were the reasons for his award?202.89.159.211 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garter 

message: Is there any particular reason, besides the obvious chronological order, that the list of positions or functions does not feature the most important function (Gov-Gen'l of NZ) in the first place under the portrait?George Adam Horváth (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was PM for 12 years, G-G for three. As G-G he suffered from failing faculties, and his term was not notable. These may not be encylopaedic reasons, but probably account for the original order. --Hugh7 (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toolbox order 

message: Just added his coat of arms.  I have the description to include in the box but can't input it right now.  WIll do so within the next day or so.
A1 Aardvark (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done A1 Aardvark (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms
Talk:Tukums

message: Is this original work? -- Zoe
I had to take that page reference out right away, because I can't st... err, I strongly dislike badly formatted text. But does "(Page 98, Tukums, Museum of Tukums; "Puse", 1995)" mean that this is, indeed, translated directly from a museum book? If so, that's going to be an issue. -- John Owens 20:33 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the rules and criteria, the English wikipedia uses for its articles, but I have to say that this article wouldn't survive ten days in others. This is simply a copy from a tourist handout without any wikification, in parts serving as a directory for hotels, bed and breakfast and the like. The weblinks lack quality, pointing towards web agencies abroad. I watched this article quite a while, it doesn't improve (well, where to start ?) and in my opinion a full delete and a new start would be the best. --Gf1961 10:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! I moved around some of the sections, did a little cleanup and linking, but argh, yes, this article is an advertisement. Cleanup desperately needed. JubalHarshaw 19:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikified

message: I deleted this section.  I attempted to get rid of the trash parts, but i realized that none of it was usable.  I only the left the museum parts, as it was the only real "locations".  If anyone with a good understanding of the town wants to write a new section there, please do, but do not add that advertisment trash again. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations in Tukums 
Talk:Prime Minister of Canada

message: Synonyms for "commonly" are "often", "frequently", "regularly", "repeatedly", "recurrently", "time and again", "time and time again", "over and over", "all the time", "routinely", "habitually", "customarily", "oftentimes", "lots", "oft", and "ofttimes". Personally, I don't think any of those work in the context as well as "most". However, do you, Instant Comma, feel any would suffice as a replacement for "most" in "while most Canadians believe they vote to directly elect the prime minister"? ₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most" 

message: I've deleted the reference to the PM "reporting to" the monarch from the infobox.  First, there is nothing in the article that supports that statement, backed up by a reliable source, and the infobox should not be stating something that is not in the article.  Second, and more generally, "reports to" implies that the PM is subordinate to the monarch on the management of the government;  he's not.  The monarch does not take any role in the policy decisions of the government.  I've also changed "Parliament" in that field to "House of Commons" - the PM and the government are accountable to the House of Commons, but not to the Senate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PM doesn't "report to" the monarch 

message: Wouldn't that be at the governor general's pleasure? as the governor general appointed the prime minister? Just wondering. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Governor General is the representative of the Crown, not the Crown itself. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that "Governor General's Pleasure" is used in the infoboxes at Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Bahamas & other forms or no forms at all, at other non-UK Commonwealth realm prime ministers' infoboxes. So, kinda thought it somewhat  out-of-sync, at this page. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't assume that all Commonwealth countries are the same.  In Australia, there is a dispute over exactly who is the head of state, the monarch or the GovGen, which could explain that usage in the wikipedia article:  Australian head of state dispute. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no dispute in Australia, as their head of state is the monarch. The latter page you mention, was basically created to promote the false dispute & should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Term length
Talk:March 26

message: sorry I deleated some things, I was editing it from my iPod touch 
Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: It would seem more meaningful to say something about Iwo being "secured" on this day.  I cannot find any reference to a third flag raising of any significance anywhere.  Wduke 
I have spent 30 minutes trying to find something to justify the third raising and can't so have removed it. --00:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Iwo flag raising? 

message: Why allegedly? I was under the mpression that clear evidence had been found implicating North Korea. The only thing missing is they haven't accepted the blame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.126.217 (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chenon 

message: March 26 is neither the date of her death nor of her liturgical feast as per the linked Wiki article.  Is there a reason she is here? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well observed, i'm going to remove her name from the page. Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Clitherow 

message: is a "grassroots movement" the sort of thing to put in Holidays and Observances? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "purple day" 

message: Did anyone know why the important national day like Independence Day (Bangladesh) not mentioned on the top as like other countries of this entire planet. Strange Srh742 (talk) Srh742 (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned in the Holidays and observances section. Kiwipete (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence Day (Bangladesh)
Talk:Marco Polo Bridge incident

message: I'm planning a cleanup of this article. I've read what's been added above here on the talk page, but not sure what is still relevant because I think some of the comments relate to an earlier version when this page was still merged with another article. I thought I would revise it to focus more specifically on the Marco Polo Bridge incident itself, and why it has attained such significance, and then provide links to the further events which followed. In addition to other sources I intend to use the recent history by Rana Mitter, China's War With Japan. FrankP (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The 'Consequences' header has an entire bit about a muslim general which has nothing to do with consequences. I removed it, but RandomCanadian put it back in 'Consequences', without giving any arguments why it belongs in 'Consequences'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.74.157 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

message: The "aerial photo of the Marco Polo Bridge" shows two bridges.  Which one is it? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the info to the picture caption. MP Bridge is on the right of the photo. The bridge on the left (actually north of MP Bridge) is a railway bridge of what was then called the Pinghan railway line. Retinalsummer (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which bridge?
Talk:Diastase

message: when diastase is heated in temperatures, we discover that the optimum is 38 because when added to starch solution with iodine
The top line needs to be cleaned up. Dude1818 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The last paragraph in Clinical Significance seems to be a promotion for a commercial product. It links to an external product page and has no reference citation. I'm not sure how to edit it. I'm no expert on diastase.
"Fungal Diastase are enzymes that are used in supplements or tablets to help stomach to breakdown carbohydrate & convert them to energy which may leads to feeling of fullness & help you to reduce body fats." Whaledancer (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product Promo?
Talk:1995 in literature

message: Is there a policy on these "year in literature" pages as to which books should go on the lists? I'm not saying that this might be useful: I'd just be interested to know whether the titles mentioned so far reflect personal preferences, best seller lists, books that have been taken up into the canon, or whatever. --KF 12:09 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
: Yes, exactly. - DavidWBrooks 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy