lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Revolt of Islam

message: This page is listed in the Islamic Poetry category.  Islamic Poetry is defined as 'poetry written by Muslims on the topic of Islam'.  Shelley was certainly not a Muslim (he was an atheist, and--at least at times--a pantheist), and the poem isn't truly on the topic of Islam either.  For these reasons I am removing the entry from the aforementioned category. Hereticam 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Islamic Poetry 

message: The synopsis contained an account of the poem different from the one I recently read in a collected edition of Shelley's works; Laon and Cythna are not captured, but gives themselves up; Laon to save Cythna, and Cythna as refusing to leave him to his fate. It is mentioned in the article that Shelley revised the poem somewhat extensively, so maybe that is the source of the contradiction. the rest of the synopsis is perfectly accurate and well done, so I incline to the latter view. Nonetheless, I performed the edit; if anyone knows anything about this, feel free to mention both versions. RPride (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion of poem in synopsis

message: The page as it currently stands gives the setting of the poem as 'the fictional state of Argolis, modelled on the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire'. But Argolis is a real place, and was really ruled by the Ottoman Empire at the time Shelley was writing. The poem also seems to make reference to Greek ruins taken over by the Ottomans ('monuments of less ungentle creeds' upon which a later people 'have stamped the sign of power', II.11-12). Is there any reason to suppose Shelley was writing about a fictional state, as opposed to the real Argolis under Ottoman rule? Note that all the other place names mentioned in the poem are real places on Earth. Vorziblix (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now read Shelley's 1817 letter (quoted in the article), it's clear that Argolis is indeed intended to be the real place, and not a fictional state; I'll change the article accordingly. Vorziblix (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argolis, a fictional state?
Talk:Children's comics

message: Might be of some use? . Got redirected back in 2007 --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Old unreferenced essay

message: meh...idk Gianni romani (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  are kids comics stupid?
Talk:Rockville, Connecticut

message: A bunch of editors have been debating when and where it is helpful to have separate articles on NRHP HDs, like about "Rockville Historic District (Rockville, Connecticut)", vs. when it is best to include the NRHP info in an article about a village/hamlet/neighborhood like this "Rockville, Connecticut" article.
Some of the editors (me included) agree that for Rockville HD we currently want a merged article.  But if there is someone who wants to make a decent separate article, that would be okay too.  We just ask, please don't split out a separate NRHP HD article unless
a) you have created or are actively developing a DYK-equivalent length starter article using substantial information, and
b) you judge in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.
Note, for all CT NRHPs, a good source is available, the NRHP nomination document, provided free of charge upon email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov.  And, in December 2010, the National Register has just made available online copies of almost all of the NRHP documents for CT:  see search screen here. 
For now, I've changed "Rockville Historic District" to redirect to "Rockville" and merged over its content.  (Equivalent notice being placed at Talk:Rockville Historic District (Vernon, Connecticut).) doncram (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey...I recognize you from the challenge, huh. Anyways, I have intergated the NRPH HD to the infobox. Feel free to reply.—JJBers|talk 05:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate NRHP HD article or not
Talk:Life tenure

message: LDS Tenure?
I do not know if mention of the LDS church belongs in an article about Tenure. It is true that once called to be an Apostle of the Lord you are an Apostle for the remainder of your life, but Tenure usually refers to positions of employment. General Authorities and Apostles in the Church are usually called to serve full-time in the ministry after they have retired from a successful career, or are for the most part free of financial burden. It is my recommendation that mention of the church here be removed unless a reference can be found to support that life service in the church is considered tenure by the church. Shemseger (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Devils Fork State Park

message: Shouldn't it be "Devil's Fork"...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadstar (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically, yes, but the state doesn't use the apostrophe, and it is their park, so... See . Mwanner | Talk 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostrophe
Talk:GF(2)

message: The purpose of this page is to provide an unintimidating sketch of GF(2) for the relatively non-mathematical reader who would be overwhelmed by a full discussion of finite fields. An example of such a reader would be a coder or software engineer who found mention of GF(2) in an article on cyclic redundancy checks.
Peter 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: I have removed "Algebra" by Birkhoff, 1967 since it isn't clear what this refers to.  Perhaps Algebra by Birkhoff and Mac Lane  was intended?  In any case, I have added Lidl & Niederreiter instead.  Deltahedron (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear reference 

message: The higher-order fields GF(2n) most definitely do exist, but their operations cannot be bitwise XOR and bitwise AND, for the direct sum of fields (considered as rings) is never a field (e.g. the bitwise AND of 10 and 01 is 00, so 10 and 01 are noninvertible with respect to bitwise AND). If no one objects, I will remove the connection between higher-order fields and bitwise operations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Their sums most certainly are bitwise xor. I agree that the products are not bitwise and (because that would have zero-divisors as you say). We should at least mention nimbers (one of the ways of doing the products) here. We could probably also mention that every finite vector space over GF(2) can be represented by bit-strings of length equal to the dimension, with bitwise xor as the addition operation. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I meant that the pairing (bitwise XOR, bitwise AND) as a whole does not endow bitstrings with the structure of a field. But it's definitely possible with some other product operation. At first glance it would seem that the multiplication operation of nimbers only applies to the case where n is a power of 2, but we know all these fields do exist, so there should be a way to describe it. At the least, too, it should be mentioned that we're not talking about the usual bitwise AND computer programmers speak of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The multiplication in GF(2n) cannot be a bitwise operation. If there were the case, the sequence of the powers of an element would have at most two elements instead of 2n – 1, and the problem of discrete logarithm would be trivial and not usable in cryptography. D.Lazard (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher-order fields
Talk:Tulan Qaghan

message: I did a little copy editing to at least make this readable, but frankly I'm not even sure if this is history or fiction.  If anyone can help, by all means do so. Accounting4Taste 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's factual, but the article is, indeed, poorly written right now.  As this is not my area of expertise, I probably won't get to trying to improve it for a while.  --Nlu (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Atacama Giant

message: Who concluded that this figure represents a calendar, and why? Hobbema (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar 

message: I want to know what this is about 2603:8001:B803:C278:2951:8E3A:E67E:EC45 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read plse I need to now
Talk:Central Bank of Chile

message: This article has copy-paste text from the central bank's homepage,  and . The article should be heavily rewritten, or deleted. ChickenFalls (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now deleted the copyvio text. ChickenFalls (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright vioation

message: I will be preparing a major expansion of this article during this week, in case there are any comments or suggestions. Since almost everything is missing, I will focus on history, organization and institutional framework, objectives and policies.
I am aware of previous copyright issues in this article, so I will be careful to edit in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know if I make any mistakes.
--Btpalaci (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just introduced the new material, I'll be checking back to see if there are any issues.--Btpalaci (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major improvements
Talk:Battle of Rancagua

message: Here
The wording in the article could be changed to flow better at points. For example the first two sentences in the background section start off the same way. Try wording one or both differently so that it does not feel like the two sentences are structured the same. Generally I suggest not to reuse the same wording and sentence structure between sentences that closely follow each other. Avoiding this makes the article more interesting to read and makes it feel less repetitive. A couple of minor grammar fixes: in the second sentence of the battle section it looks like it should say "The Chilean forces that had occupied the town..." The sixth sentence in that paragraph you should remove the "had" so that it reads, "... the Chilean forces requested reinforcements..." Otherwise the article looks good. The links all work and the sources seem neutral and academic. Bvesper (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for improvements
Talk:Duson, Louisiana

message: Don't move here. This town has nothing. LIARS on the P.D. Liars and thieves are that live in this crap town. The city government and the police department will screw you over. I won't say what I really think because I won't subject people to the extremely vulgar and profane language that describes this town. This is no place to raise children. Drugs and corruption run rampant. Law enforcement is a joke unless you are one of their dope dealing friends!.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.47.123 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Fiestas Patrias (Chile)

message: It looks like the English version of this page is underdeveloped. I've begun translating the Spanish version of this article. Since that article has few citations, I will probably need some help supporting some of the facts in the translated text.
RG (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the Spanish version is certainly much more developed. Let me know if I can help you with any fact finding. Likeminas (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning Translation 

message: I changed the link for Chilean empanadas to go to Empanada#Chile instead of just Empanada. What's the best practice here? Please revert if this seems more confusing than linking to Empanada at the top level. RG (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's perfectly fine. Likeminas (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard practice for section linking?
Talk:Janko Kráľ Park

message: I will not readd the sentence, but it is the equivalent of NY's Central Park, both in terms of position (in the city center) and in terms of function. It is smaller but Bratislava is proportionatelly smaller to NY. You will never find any source for statements like this (therefore write that you do not agree and not that the information is "unsourced"), but unless the article contains such a sentence, a normal reader coud think it is just an unimportant park somewhere and could wonder why it is mentioned here in the first place. Juro 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First post
Talk:Voiced palatal lateral flap

message: The Gentium committee recommends placing the breve diacritic under the turned-wye symbol, , to avoid the ascender, just as the voiceless ring is placed above gee and engma. They felt it should be rotated as well (as here), therefore being homographic with the non-syllabic symbol, to which it is cognate. kwami 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gentium
Talk:Stephen A. Douglas Tomb

message: Looking at the info box, we see that Douglass' tomb was built 12 years before his death.  Is this accurate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.254.17 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious error 

message: I fixed the info box date error.  I also took out the description of Confederate Mound which really doesn't belong and I'm sure had many people, me included, thinking that the mass grave for Confederate POW's who died at Camp Douglas were buried somewhere near the Douglas Tomb when in fact it's someplace entirely different.  It also had me thinking that the tomb was once part of the grounds of Oak Woods Cemetary.  All in all very confusing.  There is much more than could be written about the tomb, its dedication, etc. but I'll leave that for others.  Filmteknik (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Repairs

message: The article says Douglas is remembered for debating Lincoln about "slavery". The actual subject of the debates was whether voters in the Territories should decide to allow or prohibit slavery within their respective Territories. Lincoln is correctly remembered as a vocal opponent of slavery, but Douglas's position was much less clear. He did go on record as saying that slavery could be abolished by a simple majority vote in the routine course of politics, which is probably why he lost the 1860 presidential election.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.157.242 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Douglas and Lincoln debate?
Talk:The Importance of Being Phoebe

message: I have spoken to actor David Figlioli via My Space and through e-mail. He himself told me the apple box trivia from this episode. Thus I received this information directly from someone with first hand experience. What is required to not have the trivia deleted once it is entered? Artemisboy 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source. OR doesn't count. We need an official record of it, not an email or myspace message but a reliable source, an official book, magazine, news article. Something to prove it actually happened and that you've even talked to the real guy. How many actors have fake myspaces and emails? --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, some constructive advice would be greatly appreciated in that case. What would you need to have in regards to proving I've "even talked to the real guy"? A forwarded message? Having him contact you himself? Artemisboy 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would have to be something published online or in print by a reputable source.  See WP:V for additional details. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple Box Trivia Entry
Talk:Eushully

message: The article needs further reliable sources as it stands - I referred mostly to the company site and Japanese Wikipedia page so far.  Unfortunately, English Wikipedia and English sources in general have very low coverage of Eroge and related subjects.  There probably will not be many inter-article links until we expand information on other pages in the field, and it will be hard to find reliable external sources, so any help is greatly appreciated. Rune Melizar 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, Links, etc 
Talk:VIA Eden

message: So Eden is a lower clocked C3/C7 with no fan. Do we really need a new page to make that point? Comments. Timharwoodx 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really need this page?
Talk:No Love for Johnnie (novel)

message: This article is in need of some clean-up.  Please create a separate section for the plot spoilers, and label it with a plot spoiler tag.  Please find and add references for the article.  Please add some more information other than about the plot as well.  Thank you.  --Lifebaka 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up
Talk:Pteridinium

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Suzmites and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Suzmites" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Archangelia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  HouseBlastertalk 20:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Archangelia" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Aspidella

message: User:Debivort removed a statement that I put in "or fakes planted by God to lure those with little faith into error".  I am trying to find the reference where it came from.  It can be found in  but this is not a reliable souce.  Ediacara biota claims this idea came from, "The First Named Ediacaran Body Fossil, Aspidella terranovica" which was the major source of my information for the start of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for drawing my attention back to this. I mis-understood the meaning, but it was clarified in the other article. I'm going to restore it with a tweak.  de Bivort 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that the Ediacara biota cite Gehling et al. (2000) as reference that it was interpreted as "tricks played by a malicious God to promote unbelief", but I cannot find that in article, but if I have overlooked it would be nice if somebody could give me the exact citation with pagenummer. If I'm right it should be erased again. --Jadeginkgo (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

message: Seeing as how many species which are considered to be Aspidella, it would be a good thing to mention how sometimes Aspidella specimens deform (Which is the case for Triforillonia).
See https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ff1dc37f-711d-41f2-a3b8-733cd26cb571/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Final%2Bthesis%2Bfor%2BBodleian_22%2BNov.pdf for the source to back my claim up (Thank (Alnagov (talk) for reference).Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation should be Mentioned
Talk:Ausia fenestrata

message: Xiao, S. Laflamme, M. (2008), "On the eve of animal radiation: phylogeny, ecology and evolution of the Ediacara biota", Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
"Ausia, is placed in the urochordates [17], although detailed analysis has not been published…
Reference:
17. M.A. Fedonkin et al., The Rise of Animals: Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia, Johns Hopkins University Press (2007)."
I have replaced this reference by the original source:
Vickers-Rich P. (2007). "Chapter 4. The Nama Fauna of Southern Africa". In: Fedonkin M.A., Gehling J.G., Grey K., Narbonne G.M., Vickers-Rich P. "The Rise of Animals: Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia", Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 69-87
"Ausia is another matter, and though represented by only one specimen with several individuals preserved on one rock surface, may indeed represent a group related to the chordates (Fedonkin, Vickers-Rich & Swalla, in prep.)"
Alnagov (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference replacement
Talk:Cyclomedusa

message: It is typical specimens of Tateana inflata Sprigg, 1949(= ‘Cyclomedusa’ radiata Sprigg, 1949). This species of Vendian discoidal fossils are sometimes preserved as three-dimensional casts with impressions of stem emanating from above the discs, although they have not been found in association with any particular frond. See: Grazhdankin, D.; Gerdes, G. (2007). "Ediacaran microbial colonies". Lethaia 40: 201–210.
It is incorrect to use this photo as example of Cyclomedusa and microbial colonies in this and Ediacara biota articles.
Aleksey - Alnagov (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: About the photo of ''Cyclomedusa''

message: A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.2007.00025.x has been correctly entered.  If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database.  Please  complete the reference by hand here. 
The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message.  Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to broken DOI 

message: This has been reported in numerous publications, and Grazhdankin and Gerdes (2007) has been roundly refuted numerous times. Please see Gehling et al. (2000), Tarhan et al. (2010, 2015), Serezhnikova (2013), Burzynski and Narbonne (2015), Burzynski et al. (2017), and references therein.  Paleogreg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cyclomedusa" is a junior synonym of ''Aspidella'', a holdfast structure
Talk:Kimberella

message: The second sentence in the Classification section says, "The first specimens discovered, in Australia in 1959, were originally interpreted as box jellyfish by Martin Glaessner and Mary Wade in 1966,[5] and then as box jellyfish by Wade in 1972." I presume from the opening paragraph and an edit summary that it should read, "The first specimens discovered, in Australia in 1959, were originally interpreted as a jellyfish by Martin Glaessner and Mary Wade in 1966,[5] and then as a box jellyfish by Wade in 1972", but I don't have access to the cited source. -- Donald Albury 13:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Thank you! -- Philcha (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification problem 

message: Does the Doushantuo formation really span that length of time?  Its article doesn't seem to think so; either that or the timeline is quite wide of the mark. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It surprised me too, but that's the range given by U-Pb Ages from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China, which is cited in Doushantuo formation. Perhaps the problem is that the formation has a long time span but fossils have only been found (so far) in a small part which is "poorly constrained". -- Philcha (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doushantuo

message: could we maybe add a little section about the new species?--Paleofroggy (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  new species
Talk:Marywadea

message: This paper 
:
is used as a reference regarding Marywadea in 
:
which appears to contradict the 1976 discovery date. Could someone with full access to the papers clarify this?
The 1976 paper is available online and I have added the url and how the 1966 Spriggina ovata was elevated to genus status in 1976. GB 11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! Verisimilus T 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identification
Talk:Mawsonites

message: The wording here makes it sound like there is but one fossil of this kind in the world. Please clarify. Are these fossils rare? Also, if the word Mawsonites singular, please explicitly note this. Thanks.
Dewa (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)