lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Princess Maria Elizabeth of Sweden

message: I was just wondering what the "official" spelling of Elizabeth is; would it be Elizabeth or Elisabeth? Should we keep the varied spellings or change Elizabeth to Elisabeth? I'm asking as the article calls her Maria Elizabeth and Maria Elisabeth. I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the English spelling is Elizabeth, and the general European spelling is Elisabeth. PrincessAlice13  (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Elisabeth is Swenglish and should not be used on enWP for historical persons who lived before 1900 (that's about when we stopped translating foreign names into our own exonyms). We should change it to Elizabeth. I will look through the article and do so now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  At first I was thinking we should use Elisabeth as that's the general European spelling and probably the way the Princess's name was spelt, but since you've said that before 1900, we stopped translating foreign names; now, like you, I think we should stick with Elizabeth. PrincessAlice13  (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

text: My pleasure, and thank you for pointing this out. Btw it was basically after 1900 we stopped translating personal names (names of people who've lived after 1990 to be exact). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth vs. Elisabeth
Talk:Aberbeeg

message: the picture on this page is shite and doesnt represent Aberbeeg at all!
i'll try and take one ( CC'd )  on a fine day of a nice view!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.130.63 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a Packhorse Bridge in Aberbeeg, as shown at Packhorse bridge. A name of the bridge it crosses or an image of the bridge would be appreciated by myself and by User talk:Dave.Dunford, who has done most of the work on that article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packhorse bridge in Aberbeeg
Talk:Operation Provide Hope

message: Regarding the caption of the photograph of a C-17: Albania was never part of the Soviet Union, nor of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
76.181.117.124 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Wake

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: There's a strong consensus to move the "wake" article. Fewer editors weighed in on the appropriate name but Wake (physics) seems to have the most support of the proposed options.   (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 November 2021
Talk:Catherine Jagiellon

message: A well known portrait of Queen Catherine (albeit before she was queen) was removed today from the info box with the edit summary comment "Removing the image of Sophia Jagiellon". I have never seen anyone question that the removed portrait is of Catherine. Into the info  box a fantasy painting of the Duke and Duchess of Finland in prison was moved from lower down. I am reversing the edit because I assume it was an error in good faith. If I am wrong in so doing I apologize, but I would like to see a source for any assertion that this portrait is not of Catherine. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the portrait because the Commons have the portrait (and many similar portraits) described as being a portrait of Catherine's sister Sophia (see Category:House of Jagiellon). Some other Wikipedias (the Polish Wiki, the French Wiki, and the Spanish Wiki) use only the fantasy portrait. Furthermore, the Polish Wiki's article about Sophia Jagiellon uses the disputed portrait. I could be wrong, though; I only removed it because I thought it would be safer to use the fantasy portrait rather than the portrait which could represent Sophia. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now noticed that the the images of Sophia and Catherine are very similar, which means that I was probably wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt sure you were acting in good faith. Thank you for clarifying this. There is a certian portrait of Queen Catherine as queen at Commons, that on her tomb monument. We could use that instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Humanum errare est :) Could you please give me a link to the portrait? The only images of Catherine Jagiellon's tomb that I can see are the images of her effigy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the reclining sculpture. Not great, but a likeness for sure. See her category. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait removed 

message: If I'm not mistaken this revert is another result of the widely spread & rather tedious misconception that royalty and nobility are the same thing. Queen Catherine was a daughter of a king, a royal princess of Poland, thus not nobility, and she should never be categorized as such. I will be reverting this again unless someone can show otherwise. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Altering the English language is not a Wikipedia matter, no matter what misconceptions some Wikipedians are afflicted with.. Nobility and royalty are not the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nobility]] = Royalty again

message: I have now done this revert for the second time in an week. Her religion is a vital part of her bio - with which a user should be familiar before changes are made twice! - and led to warfare for her son. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion
Talk:Somogy County

message: As of up to-date, are there 244 or 243 "localities" or "settlements" in this county? Johnluisocasio (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of municipalities

message: Why do most of the Hungarian wikis have the names of towns in multiple languages?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibby01 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages
Talk:Yobi

message: There is already an article for the movie here: Yobi, the Five Tailed Fox. I'm not entirely sure how to redirect it, but I'll give it a try later.
Vicco Lizcano (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Update):It seems this article was created for the character in the movie, not the movie itself, but anyway, there isn't enough info to merit its own article. I thin it should be deleted and Yobi Redirect to the movie itself. Vicco Lizcano (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move, Redirect and Delete This 

message: I checked the history of the article to find out the editor who created the article and notify him/her about my intentions of making this a redirect. I found the user deleted a perfectly valid redirect without even asking, so instead I decided to make this page a disambiguation (of sorts).Vicco Lizcano (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation (of sorts)
Talk:Bible basher

message: If bible basher is to be redirected to "Bible thumper" I'd like to see a citable reference indicating usage as such. I did not mean to undo an undo, I thought I had edited a different page. 68.89.249.169 (talk)
If no person can cite a use of Bible basher in the same vein of bible thumper then I intend to edit this article in a week. I cannot find any such reference myself. Inaniaverbasunt (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Platform-specific model

message: I am proposing that this and the entry for platform-independent model be deleted and whatever content contained here and there be moved back to the MDA article.  This will never be more than a stub and the term itself has no non-generic meaning outside of the OMG's MDA.
No one has responded to similar comments left on the other MDA related stubs and so I guess I'll go ahead and start deleting these?  Jimg (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really encylopedic?
Talk:Győr–Moson–Sopron County

message: As of up to-date, are there 174 or 182 "localities" or "settlements" in this county? Johnluisocasio (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of municipalities

message: I find it interesting that there is hardly a reference, let alone a Wikipedia page even in Hungarian, about this village outside of Sopron. I suspect that it is omitted because of its notoriety as the location of an infamous prison, where so many of the opposition, to the powers that be at the time, were killed. Ineuw (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sopronköhida
Talk:Claudio Mezzadri

message: The ATP Profile link does not work. Here the correct link: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Me/C/Claudio-Mezzadri.aspx.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.70.160 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Theodorick Bland (surveyor)

message: There are several Theodoric Bland's (with various spellings).  Theodorick Bland (burgess) is said to have died in 1671, about 20 years before the survey carried out by this one. Tedickey (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to later person 

message: Document with references to Bland's survey of Williamsburg. -Location (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: For future reference
Template talk:Embraer aircraft

message: I think that there should be more consistency in what does and doesn't get listed here. Some aircraft are listed both with trade name and type name, such as the Embraer Phenom 100, which is listed both as EMB 500 and Phenom 100, whereas others are not even listed individually, such as  the E170/E175/E190/E195, which are collectively listed as the E-Jets. I think that we should at least list all of the trade names (e.g. add E170/E175/E190/E195 with proper redirects). I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not the families should be listed, but it should be consistent (right now the ERJ-145 family is not listed, but the E-Jets family is). I have a slight preference for removing the type names and keeping the trade names (e.g. EMB 505 should be removed and Phenom 300 should be kept). Scotteaton92 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of listings
Talk:Terry Serepisos

message: Anon - 4/03/2011
This article appears to be the subject of repetitive attacks, most of the revisions hold either abuse and/or badly used English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.88.250 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy to see why. This article needs more on Terry's inability to pay down his debts. 125.239.117.102 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cornelia Peake McDonald

message: What is the meaning of the phrase "counter occupied".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.34.218 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means that it changed hands frequently. Valetude (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: meaning of the phrase

message: I think she should just be listed under Women Diarists, but not memoirists. Valetude (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted 'Memoirists' today. Valetude (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memoirist? 
Talk:Smith & Wesson Model 76

message: There are many good Pictures of the M76 online because of my account status I can't submit them but if someone who has that ability here is a very good picture that is open and free and I think that this should be on the pageInsight11 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, IMFDb pictures aren't "open and free", they belong to IMFDb. Just because we look like Wikipedia, doesn't mean we operate under the same policies or that our images are open source. Spartan198 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Image of The weapon 

message: Please discuss the changes you wish to make and seek consensus for your changes.  - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix Firearms, Fruithurst, Alabama 

message: Quote: "acquired the rights to the Smith & Wesson M76"
Since patents only lasted 17 years maximum during that period, and the original manufacturer dropping the production several years before that due to lack of demand were there any patent rights that needed obtaining in the first place? Also, the section fail to actually cite any source for its information, as such, notifications are placed as per Wikipedia's guidelines.--RussianTrooper (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants section
Talk:Bowie Police Department (Maryland)

message: Just as a notification, the BPD was only created in September of 2006. Within the next few years, the BPD will have a Detective Bureau, a Canine Unit, an Anti-gang task force, etc., etc. So if anyone wants to put this up for an AfD, just wait. It'll be much more notable shortly. As it grows, I'll update the article (if someone doesn't beat me to it). Sallicio (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just FYI
Talk:Digestif

message: Actually, the consumption of food prepares the body , by triggering insulin production, for the onslaught of sugar in
digestif's.  
Also the presence of food  on the tongue and in the stomach prevents reactions to the  alcohol and irritant  flavours in the drink. So really consuming food aids the consumption of digestifs and  digestifs do not add the digestion of the meal. So its really a misnome complete misnomer.. or joke.. alcohol is also jokingly called medicinal... its just a carry on of the same.
202.92.40.8 (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  misnomer
Talk:KFMN

message: Per the WP:Disambig page, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." Since the radio station call letters are the primary identification and the ICAO code reference to an airport is a secondary identification, a hat note is sufficient and requires no more steps than would a disambiguation page for people seeking the airport. - Dravecky (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for deletion of disambiguation page
Talk:Unto This Last

message: Unto This Last had a very important impact on Gandhi's philosophy. He discovered the book in March 1904 through Henry Polak, who he had met in a vegetarian restaurant in South Africa. Polak was chief editor of the Johannesburg paper The Critic. Gandhi decided immediately not only to change his own life according to Ruskin's teaching, but also to publish his own newspaper, Indian Opinion, in a farm where everybody would get the same salary, without distinction of function, race or nationality, which for that time, was quite revolutionary. Thus Gandhi created Phoenix Settlement.
Gandhi adapted Unto This Last in Gujarati in 1908 under the title of Sarvodaya ("well being of all"). It is also the name he gave to his philosophy. Valji Govindji Desai translated it back to English in 1951 under the title of Unto This Last: A Paraphrase.
In Unto This Last, Gandhi found an important part of his social and economic ideas. Ruskin was concerned with the same problems and proposed the same solutions as Gandhi's own.
----
Changes:
1. some minor grammar.
2. The name that Gandhi gave to his philosophy is Satyagraha, and not the stated Sarvodaya. Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha is combination word deriving from Sanskrit meaning the force of truth. (graha=force; sat=truth).
3. In the final paragraph, I took out the final sentence because (1) I am not sure that "same" is appropriate; and (2) because it doesn't seem necessary.
JSteinbeck2 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi's paraphrase
Talk:Mentalism (philosophy)

message: This page presents three different definitions of mentalism. Two are philosophical and one is in linguistics. There is no mention of the term being applied to hypnotism and psychology. Nevertheless this reads more like a disambiguation than a page.
Although philosophers are mentioned in support of the definitions, it is not clear to the reader of this page that any of them would have described themselves as, or have been described as mentalists. For instance, Descartes was a rationalist, but I don't recall a source saying he was a mentalist. Information on Wikipedia must be sourced, so we need either primary sources where these philosophers describe themselves as mentalists or secondary sources that describe and explain why they should be considered as such. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference two is about ideism and not mentalism, so there is no source at all calling this metaphysical mentalism. This looks like WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Reference 3 is a link to a dictionary of terms used for teaching the English language. Moreover "mentalism" is not one of those terms. This is not a WP:RS for the claims made in this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

text: OK further reading finds: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_philosophy_of_mind.html which identifies mentalism with idealism. I cannot find any source that suggests mentalism in philosophy means anything other than idealism. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus
Talk:Maglev wind turbine

message: One of the sources quoted makes nonsensical claims of "1000 times more efficiency" - please only quote reliable and reasonable sources.  Just because it's on the Web doesn't make it true. There simply isn't that much energy lost in the bearings of a wind turbine to make that sort of claim credible. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing, but on the assumption that it's a misquote, it's probably only true at low speeds. I think i'm right in saying that normal windmills don't produce any power at low speeds, whereas presumably this does, and hence produces somewhat more overall power. It obviously cannot produce 1000x more power overall though; which is what you really care about.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency claims

message: The article says that one maglev windmill can replace 1000 of usual ones thanks to its size. This is why it is 1000x times more efficient.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.41.125.85 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I read in the reference.  Think about what you're saying - a typical commercial machine is around 1.5 MW - spinning a 100+ m diameter blade set.  To get 1000 times the power you'd need 1000 times the area or blades 3 KM in diameter and more!  Not going to happen. Can't build an individual 1500 MW wind turbine - not in Earth's atmosphere.  Maybe on Jupiter. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: It's all about the size

message: A windmill is a wind-driven machine whose shaft power directly drives machinery such as a grain mill or a water pump. A modern windmill that generates electricity is more properly called a wind turbine. Since the article appears to describe a type of wind turbine for generating electricity, the article title should be: Maglev wind turbine. Also, the title should be singular rather than plural; see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). --Teratornis (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe the title should be: Maglev wind turbine 

message: None of the claims on the website have been vetted, they don't make any sense from a fundamental engineering equation standpoint.  Frictional losses that this design claims to address are minimal in wind turbines.   This reeks of an investment scam if you ask me.  I would recommend this page for deletion as commercial promotion, or at least heavy editing to remove the original research. Tspine (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This is vapor ware
Portal talk:Current events/February 2005

message: 09-Jan-2008: The edit-buttons might not work at each day (the highly complex, peculiar article format has been garbled). However, each day in February 2005 really is a WP article of the form:
:::* Article name: February_1,_2005
:::* Proposed name: Portal:Current events/2005_February_1
Refer to each day, using those article names. I didn't create this design, just trying to help others work with it. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How to edit days

message: 09-Jan-2008: The format of article "February_2005" involves the inclusion of the 28 individual daily February-2005 articles (such as "February_13,_2005"), with all 28 articles stacked into a list. That technique is extremely simple, and should probably be used in other month-2005 articles, such as "August_2005". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: Any topics below are after 2007. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have my edits to Portal:Current events/2005 February 15 and Portal:Current events/2005 February 16 sorted it out? The next problem is that Feb 14th is missing from February 2005, but I can't add it because www.iranmania.com is on the spam blacklist. I'll get back to this later. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics after 2007

message: Why can't I get that fixed? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have my edits to Portal:Current events/2005 February 15 and Portal:Current events/2005 February 16 sorted it out? The next problem is that Feb 14th is missing from February 2005, but I can't add it because www.iranmania.com is on the spam blacklist. I'll get back to this later. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 16 2005
Talk:Functional symptom

message: I have updated this small page which did not present a typical consensus view about this topic. Whilst some conditions have moved from functional to 'structural'. most have not.
This is a very big subject and this page should I think just act as a brief signpost for the topic rather than be a large article in itselfBoris69 (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I

message: I tried to understand what this sentence was trying to say... but have failed!
“Functional symptoms are increasingly viewed within a framework in which psychological, physiological and biological factors should be considered to be relevant.”
I think it’s saying that functional symptoms are increasingly being taken seriously, and that treatment and diagnosis of functional symptoms take account of psychological, physiological and biological factors. 
Maybe. I’m not really sure! Fredsherbet (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity of second sentence 

message: This article is biased and one-sided. It is also anti-scientific explanation of a scientific concept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.135.79 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias