lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Carbonite

message: How can this be disambiguation page if it doesn't link anywhere?
It will when Carbonite_(explosive), or another article, is created.
How about a correct title? Lzer 05:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I thought carbonite was a polyatomic ion, symbol CO2, with a charge of -2. Connör (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyatomic Ion 

message: Carbonite the explosive is a mixture, and has no chemical formula (a physically impossible anion wouldn't work very well as an explosive anyway). I have restructured the page a bit to reflect this, removed the formula from that section, added information on the Carbonite brand of dynamite, and added a clarification for anyone who was really trying for carbonate but misspelled it (more common than you'd think).
But carbonite is also one of the polyatomic ions. I'll create a section in the article to reflect this. History Wizard (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explosive

message: Boffob - I believe this to be notable. Please explain if you feel it is not. - Operknockity (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup Service 

message: There is a Star Trek episode "The Corbomite Maneuver". 217.151.192.51 (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek
Talk:Eryngium

message: I added a "larger version" link to the bigger picture and continued to use the thumbnail, because it looks significantly sharper (esp. in the flower center) than the auto-generated thumb. Stan 07:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) places the genera Eryngium and Sanicula in the tribe Saniculeae in the the subfamily Saniculoideae. Germplasm Resource Information Network (GRIN) places the genera within the same tribe Saniculeae but in the subfamily Apioideae. ITIS does not recognize either the subfamily or the tribe. The APG IV system on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website by the Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT) also places the two genera in the Saniculoideae. At least two recent molecular DNA studies of the subfamily Saniculeae maintain the placement of both genera within the subfamily Saniculoideae. No discussion of moving the genera could be found. If the placement in the subfamily Apioideae is an error, that error is repeated by Wikipedia on both Eryngium and Sanicula pages. Johnvalo (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Subfamily?  

message: Eryngium agavifolium Griseb. - agave-leaved sea holly
Eryngium aquaticum - rattlesnake master
Eryngium yuccifolium - rattlesnake master, button snakeroot
Jemoulton (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botanist help needed - are these really synonyms for same species  

message: ...guess the sea-holly's unbidden guests would be slugs and snails and suchlike.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:A956:103:F8BF:42CB (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea-hollies seem mostly prickly - needs byword on whom it's prickles ward against... 

message: There is a noteworthy sundriness to the aforesaid. Most 'hollykind' are known for their prickles rather than spines. Reckon it should instead read "usually prickly leaves". . .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:A956:103:F8BF:42CB (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "usually spiny leaves" or usually thorns? or prickles? 
Talk:Ford CD3 platform

message: -----
To my belief this platform started out with the 2001 european Mondeo (Mk III). The body (without it's face) resembels the Fusion exactly! So I guess that a significant amout of development came from Cologne, Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo#Mk_III_.282000-2007.29 Dan3k5 09:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Is the 2010 Ford Fusion and cousins on a new (or significantly revised) platform? Because it looks like nothing more than an extensive facelift. Editing the article accordingly. 71.134.227.98 (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "CD3 2"
Talk:Poincaré map

message: Don't we mean 'perihelion', not 'parhelion'? mat_x 07:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: I don't think that Poincare space should redirect to Poincare map. A Poincare space is any topological space that is subject to Poincare duality (eg, a compact manifold, a strong retract of a compact manifold, etc). A Poincare map seems to be in the realm of dynamical systems. 137.82.36.10 (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poincare Space 

message: Should it be specified where U is open?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.87.189 (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hi. I'm looking for definition of " first return map". Is it related with Poincare map ? --Adam majewski (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  first return map 

message: The current article text contains:
”the locus of the Moon when it passes through the plane perpendicular to the Earth's orbit and passing through the Sun and the Earth at perihelion is a Poincaré map.”
On first reading, I interpreted it as contending that the Moon passes through the Sun and the Moon, which seems impossible. Only on second reading, I presumed that “passing” may also grammatically refer to “the plane”.
If that is the intended meaning, I propose to remove ambiguity by rewording like this:
”the locus of the Moon when it passes through the plane that is perpendicular to the Earth's orbit and passes through the Sun and the Earth at perihelion is a Poincaré map.”
Any well-motivated objections?Redav (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity and rewording proposal
Talk:Raditz

message: Maybe he did love Goku deep down, but was so angered at the fact the Goku preferred the planet he was meant to destroy instead of his big brother that he went crazy and kidnapped Gohan and tried to force him into it. I don't know...........
I'm not sure saiyans are known for loving their siblings and children. Goku and Vegeta are the only pure-blood saiyans ever to show any feelings toward their kin (I.E. Vegeta when Trunks is kiled by Cell). 
Look at Bardock when he found out Goku's power level, Bardock was disappointed and went off to battle not giving Goku a second look. But, yeah maybe Raditz did love Goku deep down, but most likely not.
Actually, Bardock loved Goku, as he says something along the lines of "To give my son a better life" or something like that when he challenges Frieza Black Omnimon 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brotherly Love 

message: ok what is radit accturle power level I know on your artical page and on many other sites raditz power level is stated at 1200 but I have also seen on other site variations of raditz power level one saying his power level is 1220 and an other saying 1500 could you please expand thanks User:Kami-Sama
also could you make a guess on raditz's power level during gt User:Kami-Sama
:1200 or "over 1200" is the powerlevel given in the anime and manga. The Daizenshuu say it is 1,500, which contradicts both of the original canon sources, and thus can be discarded as a mistake. And no, we can not guess at Raditz's powerlevel during GT because it would be speculation. There's no reason to think that Raditz got any stronger between DBZ and DBGT, but if he did, there is absolutely no way of knowing by how much. There's no need for speculation.
:Daishokaioshin 23:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  power level 

message: Okay, Nemu is getting really ridulous. He marked the article up for deletion just because everyone opposed him. I contested it so that it may stay. Now what? Will there be a discussion about this? Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Observation skills at work. ~SnapperTo 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this page is gonna be gone soon. We tried. Oh well. JamesMcCloud129 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible deletion
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance/Strategy

message: I don't understand the distinction between Structure and Hierarchy.
Is one to contain the different types of dance and the other things common to all forms of dance:
Hierarchy = Ballroom, Latin, Tap, Folk and sub-types
Structure = Education, Social, Performance, Competition, Technique, Psychology ?
--195.137.93.171 09:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure vs Hierarchy
Talk:Étienne-Louis Malus

message: But that's not what Malus did!  He did not "define a measure (orientation angle) by which to characterize relations between a light source and a system of detectors".  It was the other way around.  He clarified the law relating the intensity of the output from a polariser to that of the input as a function of the difference between the polarisation direction of the input and that of the polariser.  The law that now bears his name is:
"The intensity of the beam from a polariser can be obtained by multiplying that of the input by the square of the cosine of θ, where θ is the angle between the polarisation direction of the input and the polarisation axis of the polariser."
I expect there's a neater way of putting this.  I'll check and probably edit the page accordingly.
Caroline Thompson 09:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Stanley Milgram

message: Two users on this talk page have been arguing (vociferously) that the religion parameter may not be included in the infobox of this article because, in the case of Jews, Wikipedia policy requires a direct quote from the subject of the article stating his adherence to the Jewish religion. A statement by a person that he is Jewish is not sufficient because Jewish can also refer to an ethnicity, not only to a religion. Policy, they contend, requires a clear statement in the subject's own words of his religious commitment (as opposed to ethnic or cultural commitment) to Judaism.
Advocates of including the religion parameter in the infobox contend that the policy in question - several have been cited but the two most relevant are WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R - do not require a direct quote, but also allow public actions which clearly identify the subject's religious affiliation. In the case of Stanley Milgram, there are many of these: he was married in a Jewish ceremony with a rabbi, he belonged to a Jewish temple, he raised his children as Jewish, sending them to religious school and having them confirmed and Bar-Mitzvahed. He also stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research. These actions, together with his own statements, constitute "public self-identification" as required by the policies. Moreover, the advocates contend that Stanley Milgram is not living but dead, and therefore, policy requires only that "there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." This is certainly the case, since all the sources discuss Milgram's Jewish identification, religious as well as ethnic.
The opponents of inclusion contend that these public actions are not sufficient to meet the stringent requirements of the policy, but that only "direct speech" is acceptable for establishing a person's religious affiliation for the purpose of inclusion in the infobox.
For the convenience of editors participating in the RFC, I include the relevant policies here:
WP:BLPCAT
"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."
WP:CAT/R
"Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."
Ravpapa (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of the issue
Talk:Ford FE engine

message: Please note; the changes I made to the 1964/1965 NASCAR info is correct, as the Chrysler 426 Hemi was NASCAR legal for the 1964 season, as a minimum number of engines wasn't required that year, as long as they were put in assembly line built vehicles. The 1964 NHRA Super Stock Hemi Mopars were built on the assembly line, therefore making the Hemi NASCAR "legal" for 1964.
NASCAR outlawed the Hemi prior to the beginning of the 1965 season, therefore the comment that it was allowed that entire season is incorrect. They didn't lift the ban on the Hemi until the summer of 1965, in July. If wanted I can present exact dates & additional info on said rule changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesman Mark (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 1964/1965 NASCAR information

message: The Small Block Ford (90-degree, Windsor V8) began with the introduction of the 221-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 260-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 289-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 302-CID version.  Production of the 302-version was interrupted by the production of a 255-CID version not mentioned in the article.  All of these were "low-deck" Windsor small blocks (by contrast against the "high-deck" 351-CID version.  The Ford Windsor engine Wikipedia page mentions both of these engines (viz. the 221 and the 255), and others.
I don't know why the Editing Talk page associated my comments with the Ford FE engine, to which they obviously don't relate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.86.48.33 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windsor Engine List is Incomplete
Category talk:Terrorist incidents

message: An 'incident' implies a close call, i.e. that there were no serious consequences.  Is that really the correct term for this category? --Drdan 23:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidents covers plots, attacks, failed attempts at attacks etc. Jim Michael (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Why 'incident'?
Talk:Mazda 121

message: This is not accurate: but I am not qualified to update. The Mazda 121 was also sold as such in Australia (I had one), and in Europe (i have seen them). I do not think that it was ever rebadged as a Ford Festiva in Australia.
--GPoss 11:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
The first 121 I know of (not sure about the Cosmo-based one) was sold in some regions (including Japan) as the Festiva (I'm not sure if it was sold in Japan as a Mazda at all), and was sold in Europe during the late '80s up until the replacement by the the Revue-based 121. Also, during the late '90s up until around 2001-3 there was another 121, which was a rebadged UK-built Ford Fiesta - this was at least sold in the British Isles, and the Demio was sold as a Demio and not as the 121 here. --Zilog Jones 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no !  The Festiva is a _Mazda_, not the Mazda a Festiva ! (not to be confused with thwe Fiesta). Mazda DEFINITELY sold the Japanese WA Mazda 121 (boxy model) _at the same time_ as the Festiva (made in Korea by Kia)was sold by Ford.  The cars are identical.
The later model (called here an Autozam Revue) is mechanically identical to the WA model.
203.26.122.12 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

message: Is this version mentioned?  -- Astrokey44|talk 03:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazda 121 'bubble' 

message: This article is wrong.  The small Mazda 121 was designed entirely by Mazda.  The Ford Festiva was made by Kia Motors under licence. 203.39.81.92 (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazda 121 

message: I removed text refering to the different models as I think it is unecessary repitition - please use the articles relevant to particular models for more information. --Zilog Jones (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed details
Talk:Elisabeth Frink

message: Wasn't she "Elisabeth" Frink? Deb 11:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alexandrov (surname)

message: The 2 knew each other. They were not relatives, though. P.S. was a close friend of Kolmogorov.,
and co-authored several articles on A.D. (see the references in the external biography link for A.D.)
BACbKA 12:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship between A.D. Alexandrov and P.S. Alexandrov
Talk:April Fool (spy)

message: The "April Fool" calim from General Frank maybe right, but it is very doubtful that it would have altered the war in any significant way. Iraq had no army that could truely defend against the US-lead invasion. 
--Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.29.145.8 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 August 2004  (UTC)
----
Can someone get hold of the book and find out what General Franks actually wrote? The three linked news stories have two contradictory versions, neither of which agrees with what we have here. Securiger 07:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: If April Fool is an American officer, is he really a double agent? Wouldn't he just be a spy? --BDD 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if this article is true, but according this story he would be a double agent. If he actually gave real documents he would be a spy. But according to this story he gave them false information, meaning he is still working with the US, thus being a double agent, rather than a spy for another country. Like I said, this could all be fake though. Brinkley32 (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: overlapping subject matter, these both should share a disambiguation page. --Valley2city₪‽ 06:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree.  They don't need a page each, so we should put them together. StuartDD 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge April Fool's Day (disambiguation) into April Fool 

message: Wouldn't you want the assets near you, so you can take them out?  Especially tanks, that can hide in alleyways and roads and such in cities. Especially tanks sitting around in a desert would be awesome targets.   Fly over, infrared, yea, totally tanks right there. Report cords. Boom. Codename "April Fools" means the government has a sense of humor. Dubious.....There is just nothing there that can compete. Until you get into fighting in the streets with assault weapons that everyone there has.   I distinctly recall, CNN showing tanks rolling on the streets of Baghdad, and the Minister of Information saying to press "What? What are you talking about, there are no tanks! We are fighting them off!"  *Minister of Information, quickly looks behind his back to see if a tank is near* "We are fighting them off!"  72.218.188.96 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  April
Talk:Pavel Alexandrov

message: Before adding any allegations of homosexuality, see discussion on Talk:Andrey_Kolmogorov.
--Gene s 14:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On homosexuality 

message: Based on what the French article says, I'm nearly sure that the Alexandroff compactification is named after Pavel Alexandrov. If so, this compactification should be mentioned in this article, because most mathematicians knowing this thing will, when they hear the name Alexandrov, think about "his" compactification --UKe-CH (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the Alexandrov (or Alexandroff) compactification ? 

message: The following material has been deleted from the page: The two were involved in a homosexual relationship in the 1930s.  The material seems to be well-documented and also reported at related pages.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The two sources: Lorentz, G.G. (December 2001). "Who Discovered Analytic Sets?". The Mathematical Intelligencer 23 (4): 31. doi:10.1007/BF03024600. "In Leningrad, many mathematicians believed that Aleksandrov was homosexual..." and Graham, Loren R.; Kantor, Jean-Michel (2009). Naming infinity: a true story of religious mysticism and mathematical creativity. Harvard University Press. p. 185. . "The police soon learned of Kolmogorov and Alexandrov's homosexual bond, and they used that knowledge to obtain the behavior that they wished." are already cited in the article.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the statement is true. My only remark is that such a sentence should come with a reference at the end of it. Sasha (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version is fine.  Tkuvho (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolmogorov--Alexandrov 
Talk:Western Front (World War II)

message: Great Britain lost 384k soldiers in WWII, the article states that England lost only 40 thousand on the Western Front (10 thousand in 1940-1941 and 30 thousand in 1944-1945), but shouldn’t the Western Front be the most bloody for England? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 384 thousand for the British Empire. Just 245,000 for the United Kingdom although you are right they are to low. According to their own records the British lost 58,000 dead in NW Europe and the Canadians another 33,000 dead including pilots while the Australians lost 9,000 + dead for the period 1940-1945. FaladaHart78 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you share the source? I would like to make the appropriate changes to the article Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British losses 

message: I removed Canada from the list of Allies since it is included in the United Kingdom before I saw your note about posting it here first. Sstaley1 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Since Australia and India among others weren’t on the list of Allies and I know they were in WWII, I assumed you meant to include them in the United Kingdom category, along with Canada.  Officially, though, the United Kingdom is only comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  
I looked up the name of Britain in WWII and it was called the “British Empire and the Commonwealth.”  Britain's declaration of war automatically committed India, the Crown colonies, and the protectorates, but the 1931 Statute of Westminster had granted autonomy to the Dominions so each decided their course separately.  The 5 Dominions include the UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Sstaley1 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom
Talk:Politics of French Polynesia

message: This article should not be merged with French Polynesia if Wikipedia is going to continue to have "Politics of ..." articles about other jurisdictions.
207.69.140.35 14:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've asked for attention to many of the articles on French Polynesian politics at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia/Archive 1#French Polynesian politics.-gadfium 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates needed
Talk:Octavianus

message: True or false: this name is derived from octa-, the Greek numerical prefix for the number 8. (A detailed definition of "false" as the answer is that it happens to be spelled like the prefix but isn't really identical; an example of such a word is center. It appears to contain cent-, the Latin numerical prefix for 100, but it doesn't; it's just something that happens to be identical.) 66.245.10.239 14:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Therese Shaheen

message: This article, like all article dealing with very recent and controversial events, will benefit from some basic documenting of sources.  Otherwise the frequent use of the passive voice ("...was believed to..", "was thought to be...") is not as credible even as it constructs a sense of objectivity or neutrality.  A-giau 15:09, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled