lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ceremonial magic

message: The above article was basically a POV fork of this one (see :Talk:Magick (Thelema)) emphasizing the views of Aleister Crowley rather than a general view of the topic. I was bold and fixed it. The merged article is superior and now other pre- and post-Crowleyan views on the various subtopics can be freely added. Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Magick (Thelema)]]

message: The article in general, but especially the "Techniques" section, need views, possibly quotations, from other magicians than Crowley, possibly one earlier and one or two later magicians and/or academic views in each subsection. Skyerise (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techniques section 

message: Hi! Member of WP:Wikiproject Wikify here. Thanks for all the work you've done on this article. I see that the  tag was placed here around time last year when you were doing an overhaul - can you specify what information you think is missing from the lead? -- Missionedit (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead too short tag dated Dec 2021
Talk:List of legendary kings of Denmark

message: I don't get it. Why are they dubious? Kingturtle 02:42 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
:It's not clear they exist as anything other than folklore. -- Someone else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone else (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 April 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: They are already on the well known list, as the Jelling dynasty.  24.255.40.174 15:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Danish kings because... 

message: if the Danish article corresponding to this is "Sagnkonger", its title should be legendary Danish kings, or, if there are disputes, possibly legendary Danish kings. But not "dubious kings", that sounds ridiculous. Compare also the solution on King of the Britons. dab (ᛏ) 17:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but your English doesn't parse. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some months ago, I made Legendary Danish kings a redirect to this page. I have hesitated about meddling with the Danish kings, hoping that some Danes would take care of them.--Wiglaf 10:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposal, I'm moving the article to legendary Danish kings. Haukur 13:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: What does the abbreviation "o." mean when giving the dates here? Bobbis 6 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
:o. is danish: Omkring, in english: more uncertain as "circa" Haabet 21:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Impressive work - and very useful! Many thanks from some "hovnarrar" in Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.125.181 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  o. ? 

message: I believe Scealdwea is the same as Scyld.--67.187.177.243 (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scealdwea 

message: Why does Wikipedia use latinized names for indivuduals who themselved didn't speak it, and may never have even heard it?69.158.124.203 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: changed this
* 
to
* 
The new form says to me that either Sigtrygg was deposed by Harthacnut or Sigtrygg was contemporary – with Harthacnut, I guess, which he'd have to be if one deposed the other.
Should it perhaps be ? —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He was either deposed by Harthacnut c. 916, or by his son Gorm later. Carewolf (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigtrygg's fate and/or timing
Talk:History of large numbers

message: Please see my discussion of Names for Large Numbers. -- Stephen001
Apparently, the person who wrote the part about Indian mathematics wasn't aware of the work
of Archimedes, Apollonius, and Diophantus, a Greek triumvirate which is not at all shabby.
I have added references to these Greek works, without taking too
much away from the Indian part. -ilan
The date for the earliest layers of the Vedic literature is approx. 1700 B.C. not 3500 B.C. even though most of the Rg veda is around 1200 B.C. Please desist from entering wrong information here.
- My own quick note: a brief search reveals quite a few sources associating the historical Indian word "dhvajagranishamani" with the power of 145 rather than the stated 421.  None of these are academic sources, but I've yet to see an external source confirming the 421.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.161.80 (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

message: I removed the following, which appears to me to have been translated from some other language by a computer, or someone who does not speak English (note the incorrect grammar). I am not sure what they are trying to say or what relevance Arahau has to the history of large number names in actual usage.
:Arahau it is the only conlang, which can to form a  numbers like sextillion and above. For example: az - million, zaharg - billion, zahac - quadrillion, zard - pentillionhttp://www.omniglot.com/writing/arahauvarf.php.
Robert Munafo (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Conlang]] reference

message: Moderator removed my observation that in the Avatamsaka Sutra, chapter 30, the verses contain the first example of tetration in the history of mankind.
We shall have to wait until such is vindicated by a historian. The number it amounts to is: 10^^(10^(5*2^120))
Links: Novaloka 1.6.4.
The passage to consider  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.181.201 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Early evidence of tetration
Talk:Quadrillion

message: This article uses Trillion twice, and means different values each time!!! This is inconsistent and must be corrected.  Ian Cairns 01:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trillion

message: ...when Wikipedia had articles for larger numbers?? Now they survive as re-directs to Names of large numbers after a time on Vfd. Any discussion on what to do with this article?? 66.245.89.130 02:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you remember... 

message: Do you support or oppose merging this with names of large numbers?
* Oppose. Most links to quadrillion in Wikipedia want information about the actual number, not the name. This article mentions things that names of large numbers does not and cannot mention. Merging it leads to bad consequences such as 10^15 redirecting to names of large numbers when it isn't a name at all. Voortle Voortle 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging this article with [[names of large numbers]]

message: This article states that the traditional British definition of a quadrillion is 10^{18}, whereas the Names of large numbers page states 10^{24}. Following the logic of the old system this page seems to be at fault, but with no references I am reluctant to change the page. Can someone with more knowledge on the matter check which is correct? RossMM 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, so I changed the page. I checked it against the Oxford English Dictionary to be sure. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. RossMM 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: What happened to this article that now consists of basically 2 sentences? It used to be an extensive article... Did the Wikipedia reductionists show up again?  Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''This Article Used to be Large - What Happened to It?''' 

message: The stub article makes some bold claims without citation.
What are the numbers of English speakers using the different definitions proffered?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.49.21 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citations 

message: All English speaking countries use the short scale. "Short scale countries" is a weird phrase that tells the reader nothing. Also definitions in wikipedia are always the English definition unless otherwise noted. Bhny (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  short scale countries
Talk:Checks and balances

message: For some reason due to some slight oversight I'm sure, the article missed that:
* The Executive branch executes
* The Legislative branch legislates
* The Judicial branch does justice
It also missed the bit where having all 3 powers in one hand is Not A Good Idea in practice. That's why they're divided or separated, for which we can thank God and Montesquiue.
I did some editing to start fixing that. I also NPOVed a bit based on what I remember about constitutions of other countries.
Maybe this article should be merged with separation of powers. They're starting to look very similar.
Kim Bruning 22:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I recall reading about the Greek historian Polybius. He identified 3 basic forms of constitution: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; and their counterparts which they seemed to inevitably degrade into: tyranny, oligarchy, mob-rule. He called this process of "anacyclosis" (άνακύκλωσις).  Hereditary succession causes the degradation in each form, and causes a rebirth into the next form.  Monarchies eventually become tyrannic, which are then ousted or defeated, typcially replaced by aristocracies. But their descendants also take their position for granted, descending into oligarchy, which is then overthrown by popular revolt. The democratic revolution over time degrades into mob-rule, until a single charismatic leader unifies the mob, thus rebirthing a new monarchy, and the cycle is restarted.
Commenting on Rome, Polybius asserted that the Romans had largely managed to avoid the anacyclosis (at the time, at least) because their government instituted aspects of each simple form of constitution.
Other Greek philosophers had noted the benefits of separated government. see Sparta.
More importantly, and to the point re: American influence, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, etc. knew of, read, referenced, and were influenced by Polybius' writings.
Now, does this belong in Checks & Balances, or in Separation of Powers, or a bit of both? Regardless, the concept is not new, and is not Amero-centric.
Scott B 15:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checks and balances as old as Greece 

message: Are you positive that Montesquieu coined the term "checks and balances," rather than the concept?
-- unsigned anon (please sign! Use ~~~~)
: The concept I think. Best to check really :) Kim Bruning 22:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Montesquieu

message: The long-awaited merger with Separation of powers has finally been implemenented; I hope everything has translated properly. -- Beland 02:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger implemented 

message: Like this https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/check-and-balance/ and others wikis https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8272977#sitelinks-wikipedia , i want to restoring the article from 2005 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Checks_and_balances&direction=prev&oldid=16093355 because isn't another concept. If there is no objection, I will do so. 5.90.238.161 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring the article
Talk:British royal family

message: There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Charles III 

message: Given that the lede describes the family as those relating to Charles III, it may be appropriate to use a balcony photo in which he is king, such as from his coronation. This one has appropriate licensing but is less complete than the old picture.
TD;DR RFC: Update Buckingham Palace balcony photo to one from C&C coronation? YallAHalla☎ 05:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on Photo 

message: I think there should be times when photos of the royals should be updated. RicLightning (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos in the Members section

message: Can you please make a list on all the public events that the royal family have done? Like trooping the colour and other types of public events 2604:3D08:9576:B600:6D9B:40AD:F0EC:580B (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Each member attends hundreds of events each working year. Such lists are out of scope. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of British royal events 

message: I see that the "Current Family Tree" does not include King Edward VIII (1936 to 1936) He was officially a King, and was a Great Uncle to the current King.  Yet it does show his siblings Prince Henry, Prince George and the other brother King George VI who succeeded him. Steve s brook (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not a direct ancestor of anybody. The same reason that the youngest brother (Prince John) isn't included. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering why the Current Family Tree is incomplete and has no mention of King Edward VIII
Talk:Passover Seder

message: The section on Miriam's Cup seems a little off... It doens't cite any references, seems to be a new inclusion (20 years ago insteady of 3,000) and has the ring of 'Things Made Up at School One Day'. Can anyone verify? 99.246.148.42 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a site on it if that helps:  Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miriam's section? Why 

message: My calendar says this year it's the evening of April 19, article says 20.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  date? 

message: While Samaritans do observe Passover, they do not conduct a seder. They gather to sacrifice and roast the lambs, and then they have a meal together, but not within a structured ritual The Inkling 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samaritans removed
Talk:Neutrino

message: The WP articles for the electron, the proton, the neutron, and many others, give a lifetime; e.g., for the electron: "stable ( > 6.6×1028 yr)."  What is a suitable entry for the neutrino?
Ross Fraser (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is none, to anybody's knowledge, so far. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

text: It's expected to be stable (no lighter particles it could decay to), but we don't really have a method to look for decays besides ruling out lifetime values so short that they would be absurd anyway. --mfb (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No lifetime given for neutrinos in the info box 

message: The neutrino mass section contains a paragraph starting with "In 2009, lensing data of a galaxy cluster were analyzed to predict a neutrino mass of about 1.5 eV...", which contains two citations of papers by Theo Nieuwenhizen. I've quickly looked at those papers now, and they do not contain bounds on the neutrino mass under standard cosmology. Instead, these are theoretical papers about a nonstandard model where neutrinos (normal+sterile) make up all dark matter, and 1.5 eV is the typical mass of an individual neutrino species in that model. These are not upper bounds, but the rough mass needed to make his model work. The cosmological consensus is that masses this high are strongly excluded. For example, the best current bounds are that the average neutrino mass must be less than 0.03 eV (= sum of masses less than 0.09 eV), 50 times lower than Niewenhuizen's value. Since this is a theoretical prediction for an unpopular alternative model, I think just stating these numbers as they are in the page will mislead the reader. I think they should either be removed, or moved into a separate section about alternative theories on the impact of neutrinos on the growth of structure or something. Amaurea (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, trash the obsolete/superseded statement, and update with yours, given honest caveats. Be bold. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it and cleaned up that part in general. --mfb (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird neutrino mass claims from Theo Nieuwenhuizen 

message: This note seems inaccurate: "More specifically, Pauli postulated what is now called the electron neutrino." 
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay Pauli did that in 1930, presumably for beta minus decay, since beta plus decay wasn't discovered until 1934. That article also says, "In beta minus (β−) decay, a neutron is converted to a proton, and the process creates an electron and an electron antineutrino; while in beta plus (β+) decay, a proton is converted to a neutron and the process creates a positron and an electron neutrino."
Consequently, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Pauli postulated what is now called the electron antineutrino?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.57 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pauli postulated what is now called the electron neutrino" -- shouldn't that be "electron antineutrino"?
Talk:Eurasian golden oriole

message: The Golden Oriole is very much found in several parts of Asia. However, the distribution map does not adequately depict its correct distribution. A corrected version of the map is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriniketana (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this indicates Oriolus oriole in the strict sense with Oriolus kundoo elevated to full species. But yes the article itself is in need of major improvement. Shyamal (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.wildechoes.org/species/oriole/golden-oriole. Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Spike Milligan

message: It doesn't read "Dúirt me leat go raibh mé breoite" any more. It used to according to images found on Google, but since Shelagh's name was added it now reads "Dúirt me leat go mé breoite". I have no Irish at all, so I don't know if that makes any difference (Google translate tells me it does not). What puzzles me is that I can't find anything online that references the different wording. Deadlock (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headstone 

message: What's the format for the end of the third marriage in the inbox. Survived by Shelagh who died in 2011.
Thanks S C Cheese (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for spouse 

message: I have tried to find a citation to support that this show was a pilot but have been unable to. The Goon Show Companion (ISBN: 9780722191828) lists this single episode and makes no reference that it is a pilot. The Goons: The Story (ISBN: 9780753505298) interviews the producer Peter Eton who says nothing about the show being a pilot, and also says he was unable to get an original script out of Milligan, which may suggest that there was no plan for further episodes. I have checked three biography's of Milligan and none of them mention the show at all. I would also note that neither the Goon Show page or Goon Show episode page on Wikipedia list the episode as a pilot either. 
I suggest this reference to the episode being a pilot is safe to remove. Herbert-kavan (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goon Show 1968 - Thames 'pilot'?
Talk:John Paul Getty Jr.

message: In retrospect, he is almost invariably known as "John Paul Getty". Should the title of the article be altered? IXIA (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As no-one has disagreed with this in nearly 18 months, I'll make the move. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The article says, "After his father's death [in 1976], he was able to stop using drugs."  But then, "in 1984 in a final attempt to end his drug addiction, checked himself into a London clinic."  This seems a bit contradictory; furthermore, there's no indication elsewhere in the article that he started using drugs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortonmc (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal problems

message: Where did he get the 1.6 billion dollars from? 129.247.247.240 (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Wealth

message: The dates currently provided for the stay at the London Clinic are a bit confusing: entrance in 1984, exit in 1986 and duration of 9 months. I suppose there were multiple stays and 9 months was either the longest stay or the sum of the durations, but it would be nice to clarify. Nemo 11:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Clinic
Talk:Military–industrial complex

message: I believe Ike's farewell address originally referred to the "military–industrial–congressional complex" (MICC), but political pressure persuaded him to remove the word congressional as it inferred the financial side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.4.39  (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? - wolf 20:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  military–industrial–congressional complex 

message: Clearly the issue had been weighing heavily on his mind because he used his one and only farewell address to discuss it.  The article should include a history of his thinking on the matter and what specifically inspired him to talk about it. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs information about what inspired Ike to talk about it 

message: The "third era" section cites a single source from 1974 about the US economy being "now tied directly to.." and refers to attitudes "still prevalent the American public'. Can a single article from a half century ago speak to our current reality and attitudes?
Additionally, it's listed under "the third era" section, but the author's own source William J Lynn III states that the third era began after 1993. (The End of the Military-Industrial Complex
How the Pentagon Is Adapting to Globalization, available on the Foreign Affairs site) 2600:6C44:39F0:8BA0:EC90:B4D4:A5D1:B76F (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old source speaking to 'current' attitudes