lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:What goes around comes around

message: Could this be incorporated into List of clichés instead of meriting a whole article on its own? --CeltMDC 08:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, as I don't think there much more to write about the phrase than what's here now, without duplicating (or expanding) the existing Karma entry.  I've just added this to the cliche list. Silverfish 14:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Quantum number

message: In the section "Spatial and angular momentum numbers" the article states "As per the following model, these nearly-compatible quantum numbers are [...]". What does nearly-compatible mean? I have not heard of compatibility of quantum numbers. If this is not a scientific term, I believe this should be clarified. If it is, including a citation or further explanation would be helpful. --abhandari (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly-compatible quantum numbers 

message: The article says: In the case of electrons, the quantum numbers can be defined as "the sets of numerical values which give acceptable solutions to the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom"  Seems to me that this is true near some positive particle.  Well, much of quantum numbers has to do with the quantum description of an atom, but all this is also more general.  Quantum mechanics also describes, for example, the states of spin 3/2 negatively charged particles around a spin 2 positive particle. Seems to me that a good part of the article should describe the quantum mechanics of electrons around nuclei, that being a common situation, but not the only one. Gah4 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''In the case of electrons, the quantum numbers can be defined as "the sets of numerical values which give acceptable solutions to the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom"'' 

message: The rules subsection nicely uses carbon for an example. This might be a good place to mention that the basis for the numbering isn't unique, and, for examples, Sp3 hybridization. This is sort-of hinted at when it mentions linear independence earlier, but should be mentioned more. Gah4 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If we write the numbering system as (n, L, m, S) where n ranges from 1 to 7, 2L+1 ranges from 1 to n (so L ranges from 0 to 3), m ranges from -L to L, and S is either 0 or 1, then an equally good numbering system is (hn, T, L, m, S) where hn ranges from 0 to 3, T is 1 when hn == 0 and otherwise is 0 or 1, L ranges from 0 to hn, m ranges from -L to L, and S is either 0 or 1. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Orbital hybridization]] 

message: This article mixes up energy levels with transition energies and implies that measurements arrive at integer values. EG  "quantities can only be measured in discrete (often integer) values." Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of "integer" and "half-integer". 

message: Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers links this article with text "flavour quantum numbers". Sadly this page has almost nothing to say about that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers
Talk:Add Insult to Injury

message: VfD talk....
*Delete - dictionary definition - Texture 16:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: Not sure if this is the best place to address this, but this article still exists with a VfD tag from March--the Talk page seems to have a pretty clear consensus to delete. Niteowlneils 02:00, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed in the Ongoing discussions section, although this seems to have been a unilateral action by Pete/Pcb21 despite what looks like a clear consensus to delete. I've turned it into a stub for the album, but left the VfD tag. - Lee (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on vfd, the consensus was to delete the article about the phrase, but if the phrase is deleted, then we either have an article about the album, or redirect to the creators of the album. Either way, it is not a deletion issue but a content issue, I'll remove the vfd tags. I wasn't being unilateral, I was responding to the outcome of the discussion. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  from pump
Talk:John Gray (American Revolutionary War soldier)

message: I updated the references and added a photo from wikicommons.   There is one dead link.  I found the books online and filled out the ref template.
  19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Update
Talk:Rotation (disambiguation)

message: Rotation can also describe the rotation of players on a sports team (ie soccer, cricket, etc).  It usually occurs when a coach/team manager cycles through the playing roster, to prevent athletes from getting fatigues.  But it seems quite controversial, because fans don't like to see star players be rested.
Anyone else think the use of rotation in sports deserves a mention here? Samatic 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation in Sports 

message: Rotation in office is fairly commonly written about and has a long history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation in office?
Talk:10

message: There are a number of facts that are the equivalent to '10' is the same as '10'.
# 10 is the lowest two digit number in base 10. Well of course it is just as 2 is the lowest 2 digit number in binary and 8 is the lowest two digit number in octal. It's part of the definition of a number base.
# The basic calculation section is simply reiterating that we use numbers base ten. abc \times 10 = abc0 and abc \div 10 = ab \cdot c . Similarly 10^n = 10...0 (n zeroes).
# The indexed sequence of triangle numbers is just a statement that our numbers are written using base ten. In octal and hex
#;\triangle 10_8 = 44_8, \triangle 10_{16} = 88_{16}
#;\triangle 100_8 = 404_8, \triangle 100_{16} = 808_{16}
# Age ten is a preteen and a denarian. This is from the definition of these words
Is there any reason not to delete these statements? OrewaTel (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: reverse 60 9 12 10 3@OrewaTel 41.218.196.60 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-information
Talk:List of counties in Vermont

message: Seems like this page has gotten way out of control.  It's difficult to tell the 14 counties.  My recommendation is to move the history into a separate section and onto the individual county pages.  Keep the map of course.  Unless somebody objects I'm going to clean it up.   - Redjar 14:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created my proposed cleaned up version. User:Redjar/Sandbox/Vermont counties - Redjar 15:05, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, indeed. Clean and coherent. DavidWBrooks 14:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some helpful information on U.S. county lists can be found at WP:COUNTYLISTS. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject help

message: This article says:
::: In 1781, Cumberland County was separated into three counties in Vermont plus another county named Washington (not the same as the modern Washington County) that eventually became part of New Hampshire.
: 
Would it not be the case that it "became part of New Hampshire" in the 1782 agreement between VT and NH that the Connecticut River would be the boundary? Should the article say so? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington County 
Talk:Open-source search engines

message: The page existed before but someone deleted it. I was trying to put it back using google's cache, and meanwhile i had put the link there (ie http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_search_engines).
Are we sure we want this page to be in this format? Keeping 'latest stable release' up to date is going to require someone visiting the page every few weeks. DJ Clayworth 14:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Dunkirk evacuation

message: Editors of this article may wish to know that that the way the parameter "result" has been completed in the infobox for this article ("Allied retreat") has been mentioned in Template talk:Infobox military conflict#rules for Result parameter. 
For the record, I entirely support the way the result is portrayed in the infobox in this article - however it appears to me that this does not fit the rules for the infobox template.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "result" 

message: Watch WWII road to victory 2603:6000:DE00:9B:68DE:3C2E:4434:F423 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment, but why? At the top of the page you will see it says  so I am wondering if this is a suggestion for improvement and if so how it works, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch WWII road to victory 

message: None 49.150.185.122 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What can be considered as logistics failures as depicted in the film?What should have been done 

message: The article fails to note, as people always do fail to note, that, immediately after telling the House that 'Wars are not won by evacuations,' Churchill added, 'But there was a victory inside this deliverance, which should be noted. It was gained by the Air Force. Many of our soldiers coming back have not seen the Air Force at work; they saw only the bombers that escaped its protective attack. They underrate its achievements. I have heard much talk of this; that is why I go out of my way to say this. I will tell you about it.' https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/collections/churchillexhibition/churchill-the-orator/fight-on-the-beaches/ Most of the facts and figures he went on to give are now known to be wrong, but he was correct on the whole. The Luftwaffe attempted to interdict the evacuation and failed. It was also the first time that the Germans encountered Spitfires (previously held in reserve), which they clearly did not like much. Churchill remarked, 'The great French Army was very largely, for the time being, cast back and disturbed by the onrush of a few thousands of armoured vehicles. May it not also be that the cause of civilisation itself will be defended by the skill and devotion of a few thousand airmen?' In the next few months, this proved prophetic, leading to his speech on 'The Few' on 20 August. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill
Talk:Waugh

message: Hope this is OK.
I know there are other Waughs (e.g. Mark Waugh) but my guess was that most people looking for Waugh would be looking for Evelyn Waugh.
(See Tolkien and Christoper Tolkien say.)
cfp 17:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to make it a disambiguation page - after all, there's Alec Waugh and Auberon Waugh, too. Right now if somebody wants to find them and goes to Waugh, there's no obvious way to move on. - DavidWBrooks 17:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambigged at Waugh (disambiguation), this page now redirects there. Jwrosenzweig 17:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah you're right, it is better this way, nice work. - cfp 22:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm wondering about the pronunciation /ˈwɑː/ since the article about Evelyn Waugh proposes /wɔː/. Are they geographical variations? Which one is the most correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samedie (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:President of the Senate

message: :In many countries, the Senate Presidency is a largely symbolic position.
njjjkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
I'm interested. Which ones?
fycj 
:In countries with a presidential system of government it is sometimes bestowed on the Vice President.
fuck bitches get monet
I'm interested. Which ones?
–Hajor 17:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleshing out the article

message: I'm confused .... maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the section for the United States says:
"In practice, freshman senators are traditionally assigned the role of presiding over the Senate in order to learn Senate procedure."
However, this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate states:
"by custom, the President pro tempore is the most senior senator in the majority party"
Is there a discrepancy?
Quartney (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 
Talk:DNA/Archive 9

message: First paragraph:
#DNA should not be defined as "the primary chemical component of chromosomes". Prokaryotes don't have chromosomes and they make up two of the three major lineages of life. Bensaccount 15:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second your request that things "be more specific and more constrained. P0M 18:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro passage fact by fact
Talk:Walter Lippmann

message: Noam Chomsky has repeatedly quoted Walter Lippmann on making the distinction between an "intelligent minority" of "Responsible men" and the rest of us, who are "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders," but Google can't find me a source other than Chomsky himself.
Is there an academic out there, with access to more traditional sources, who could cite the actual passage this comes from and add it to the article? 184.57.129.13 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'm no academic but I found the source of a quote from Lippmann in Scatamburlo-D'Annibale, Valerie, et al. "Farewell to the ‘bewildered herd’: Paulo Freire’s revolutionary dialogical communication in the age of corporate globalization." Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 4.2 (2006): 30. There's a free PDF in Google Scholar. The authors cite Lippmann's book The Phantom Public from 1925. All good except you can read the book free in Google Books, and I don't find this precise quote. Only a sentence here and there.
Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Responsible men" vs "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders"
Talk:List of airships of the United States Navy

message: I wish to congratulate the person of uncertain parentage who managed to trash an article with some coherence for a list of very dubious integrity or competence. p.s. the R-38 was a strictly commercial deal. No offset of 'war debts' was made.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: I am reviewing the subjects of British and French Airships operated by the US Navy. I am also going to address airships transfered to the US Navy by the Army as a few of such were of US manufacture and retained their Army designations,Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding missing blimps 

message: This "List" was originally an article about a distinct subject within history which formed an entire experience related to not only Airships, but Naval history and weapons system development.
It seems that everything which possessed both an envelop and engines is to be dealt with as a single subject with nothing but lists to differentiate between subjects as diverse as the SS Queen Mary and the USS Iowa. or a piper cub and a P-3A.
While the Queen Mary and Iowa were both ships, and the cub and Orion are both aircraft, whether they should be treated as nothing more than ships or aircraft is to remove any ability to provide context.
It might be prudent to reinstate an Article for US Navy Airships.Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly compulsive minds and the tendency to aggregate what is essentially diverse. 

message: While the Nan ship was the 'prototype' of the ZPG in many ways, it was also very distinct from the developed design. Somehow the very different ZPN-1 (ZPG-1), the "G-Class" ZPG-2, -2W quite different as was the ZPG-3W. Somehow these have been conflated into a single article as on class the "N-Class." If anything the ZPN should be treated as a the ZPG-1 and a prototype of the ZPG-2 and ZPG-2W. It was intended to upgrade the ZPG-1 to a ZPG-2 standard in 1959 but those plans were cancelled. The ZPG-3W should be treated as a class apart.Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nan Ships, and the ZPG-2
Talk:Thomas Guide

message: This was orphaned. Since it is useful in LA, I added it there. But if someone deletes that reference, then this article should go.Ancheta Wis 18:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned

message: Flagged POV due to heavily biased "history" section. It sounds more like an angry ex-employee writing about the demise of the company rather than an objective history.71.193.127.169 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: POV
Talk:Police woman (disambiguation)

message: "A Police Woman is a female police officer."
Well, certainly not according to the pages that link to here!
Don't make a redirect to police woman, that's not on the wanted list! <KF> 19:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late. Morven redirected it to police officer. <KF> 19:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Great. In such a case that's the only sensible thing to do because all pages that link to this new one here are about the 1970s TV series. A redirect (let alone a double redirect, which was created in this case) is of no help whatsoever, but it usually only takes a minute or two for someone to do exactly that. Well, let's hope this new article will grow. <KF> 22:35, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Added Women in law enforcement under see also, which provides what you want. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:First Opium War

message: To be fair, Britian didn't unanimously agree to a war. There was significant internal division within their gov about the ethics of forcing the Chinese to continue the opium imports through war, with some proponents arguing that it was unethical.  Sir James Graham, Lord Phillip Stanhope, and William Ewart Gladstone led the anti-war faction in Britain, and denounced the ethics of the opium trade and opposed the war. I think that is noteworthy significant history that should be mentioned in the introduction chapter. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti war views in Intro 

message: The intro was incredibly biased and making it seem like the Chinese were the ones in violation of "principles". The elephant in the room is that the Chinese didn't want the British to profit from opium whereas the British saw the Chinese refusal to let British to sell opium to them , as some kind of sleight. Like how dare the Chinese create their laws that make it inconvenient for the British to profit from opium. The most important context that should be emphasized is that the opium trade was illegal and the British ignored that. Yet the intro makes it seem like the Chinese were in the wrong here for violating the principle of free trade as if they were in breach of international laws. Such an extremely biased take to blame it on the Chinese despite they didn't break the laws. The British did break Chinese soverign laws and hence it should be noted in the intro clearly as what really occurred behind the onset of the war. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do your objections still hold? This all seems to be covered in the lead. LastDodo (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free trade wasn't the Chinese laws 

message: The following passage makes it seem like Melbourne became Foreign Secretary after Palmerston and for the remainder of the war:
In Britain, changes in Parliament resulted in Lord Palmerston being removed from his post as Foreign Minister on 30 August. William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne replaced him, and sought a more measured approach to the situation in China. Lamb remained a supporter of the war.
I believe this is not accurate, at least Melbourne is not listed as Foreign Seretary on the page about the office, rather it seems Lord Aberdeen replaced Palmerston when the Melbourne government fell and Peel became Prime Minister on 30 August 1841. Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastDodo (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne Foreign Secretary?
Talk:Type design

message: "Someone who designs type is called a type designer, not a font designer, nor a fontologist, nor an alphabetician". LOL how about a "fontographer"? ;)  Theanthrope 20:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: It might be better to add some notable type designers of different era's under 'Profession' as some examples along with the name of the typeface they created or help contribute to. I think that some images of typefaces or possibly some design works with different type designs incorporated in it would help liven the page up. Rl081289 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Improvements? 

message: :If I could suggest adding more to the principles section. There isn't really much to describe how type design is done. It is more of a description of what may happen in general. Perhaps some examples?
Ellebrager (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  some more info?
Talk:Morlocks (comics)

message: Uh... I think someone needs to link this to X-Men somehow. I don't know the X-Men comics but I know the Morlocks are from the X-Men universe.
----
Also, this isn't an appropriate place to reference the Morlocks from The Time Machine, as this is about comics.
----
I've removed most of the real names given here by User:Sherryshriner.  I can't find any source for any of these removed names except for a few that were only used in X-Men Evolution.  If any of them are actually canonical, please provide a source.  -Sean Curtin 23:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Who was that little girl Morlock in the X-Men Evolution episode? The one who could paralyse people by touching them? Bluecatcinema 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: You may want to consider splitting off the member list into List of Morlocks members, similar to the articles in the "Lists of Marvel characters by organization" category. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Morlocks

message: Should there be a link at the top to clarify that is not about the other uses of the same term (HG Wells, Slav history)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.215.202 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation
Talk:Culture of Saudi Arabia

message: Culture of saudi arabia 2404:1C40:D2:E8A:1:0:C4B:C63D (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture of saudi arabia 

message: — Assignment last updated by Hissalmana (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: MIT 398 Intercultural International Communication
Talk:Al Gore's views/subpage discussion

message: This kind of page is out of the norm - I can surmise that since the page is protected, you wanted to work on some part of it. The general way to to do that is to make a subpage like Al Gore/Draft for whole article rewrite) or Al Gore/Views for your section here. -SV(talk) 20:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That may all be well and good, but its incorrect. The page in question is protected. If someone wants to edit the whole, page, one makes a temp subpage to chew on while its protected. The changes/ideas are then added to the article. See Terrorism for an example.  The article should be worked on holistically, (or wholistically) especially in dispute cases, where nobody outside the discussion is going to have a clue about the petty particulars. --SV(talk) 21:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)