lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:MultiLicenseMinorPD

message: Because it's actually legally impossible to grant one's own works into the public domain in the U.S. and U.K., and this creates serious potential legal problems, I will deprecate this tag if there is no dissent for 4 days. Please see Wikipedia:You can't grant your work into the public domain for a full explanation along with some authoritative sources, including the U.S. Copyright Office. I have created the tags , which reflects the intent of this template. Deco 03:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please ignore the above. This template has not been retired and there was considerable dissent over the accuracy of my statements. I no longer contend that it is impossible to release one's works into the public domain - I am not a lawyer and there is no legal precedent in this matter. The link above should redirect to relevent discussion. Deco 05:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retiring 

message: Please replace the text under the GFDL in this template with under Wikipedia's copyright terms, per meta:Licensing update/Result. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia licensing update 

message: I request that this template be moved to :Category:Wikipedia copyright templates. It doesn't belong in :Category:Copyright user templates it should only be for userboxes. Catfurball (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: see central discussion at Template talk:TextLicenseFreeUse. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 July 2021
Talk:Neptunism

message: The last thing that I want to do is to start the flood geology thing all over again in a new place.  However, some of them apparently see themselves as heirs to the old theory, since they agree that everything that we now see was essentially the result of water, precipitation of chemicals out of water into rocks in the case of Neptunism, all shaped into its current form by the action of water in "flood geology".  Rlquall 17:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a creationist, I have never heard of flood geology being likened to Neptunism, nor of flood geology arguing for precipitation of chemicals out of water into rocks.  However, what you may be confusing things with, is the idea that the earth was created as a ball of water (certainly the Bible talks about it being totally covered with water when first created), and then some of this being converted to rock ('and God caused the dry land to appear', to paraphrase).  But even with that, I haven't heard a creationist argue for any particular method such as what you describe for Neptunism.  Philip J. Rayment 11:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flood geology

message: This addition by User:72.38.231.234 lacks sources and needed drastic formatting, so I've taken the article back to an earlier version with modifications. Vsmith had reverted it as at copyvio from http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm but as that "is  in the public domain and may be used without charge and without permission,  released May 2000" there should be no problem given proper attribution, and rewording where appropriate. ... dave souza, talk 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions to article

message: Did this ever reach the level of "scientific theory" or should it be correctly referred to as an early hypothesis? GDallimore (Talk) 09:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's linked at the top to Superseded scientific theories which seems about right, though it dates to a period when science was still some way from its modern formulation. See Neptunist-Plutonist/Vulcanist Controversy for the developing context of the time. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory? 

message: "The debate was not just between scientists. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, one of the most respected authors of the day, took sides with the neptunists. The fourth act of his famous work Faust contains a dialogue between a neptunist and a plutonist, the latter being Mephistopheles, the antagonist of the play who is a devil. Doing so he implicitly expressed his favour for the neptunist theory, though he also did so explicitly and sometimes even harshly elsewhere." - This is incorrect. The debate occurs in Faust: Part Two, Act 2, Scene 6, and is between the ancient Greek philosophers Thales (Neptunism) and Anaxagoras (Plutonism). - Eroica (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goethe's Faust
Talk:Battle of Heraclea

message: Hi. I found here another possible order of battle for Heraclea:
Pyrrhus
*3000 Advanced Guards with Milo (Hypaspists or Chaeonians)
*20,000 Phalangites, Hoplites, and Peltasts (Includes 5000 Macedonian mercenaries supplied by Ptolemy)
*3000 horse (Including a contingent of Thessalian Horsemen)
*2000 archers
*500 Rhodian slingers
*20 war elephants with towers holding troops
Tarantine army
*6000 Levy Hoplites
*1000 Cavalry
Romans
*20,000 legionars (4 legions)
*1,200 cavalry
Roman allies
*16,800 legionars (4 legions)
*2,400 Light infantry Bruttians, Campanian allies 
*3,600 Allied Legion Cavalry 
*1,200 Southern Italian Light Cavalry
What about it?--Panairjdde 17:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Puná

message: i find some language use very interesting, referring especially to the battle of puna.... such emotional discriptions seem only to deceive... but what do i know.
Notes:
* the use of the Quechua Tahuantinsuyu to refer to the Inca Empire seems pretty counterintuitive, especially given that the former now redirects to the latter. Fixed.
* It's unclear that the plural of "Inca" is singular in construction. Until this can be conclusively proven either way, I'll revert Zenyu's edits to avoid confusion (I use "the Incas" to denote Quechua inhabitants of the Empire and "the Inca" in reference to the monarch, as does Prescott - this distinction may become important later in the campaign). Albrecht 17:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article relies exclusively on the Spanish chronicles for its account of the conquistadors' superior weaponry single-handedly overcame the vast disparity in numbers between the conquistadors and the Incas. However, the Nova episode "The Great Inca Rebellion," aired in 2011, reanalyzed one of the battles of the Spanish conquest using forensic and legal history evidence. Although the exact battle was not specified, it probably has parts that apply to other battles, including Puná, if it was a different battle. Among the statements in the episode was "The chronicles try to justify the conquest. And in order to magnify the glory of the Spaniards, they exaggerate." In other words, we can't trust what the chronicles.
The episode covered the discovery of wounds discovered on the battlefield consistent with steel weaponry like what the conquistadors brought. However, it also mentioned that the vast majority of injuries found at the site were blunt force injuries more consistent with New World weaponry.
I'm not aware of any source that provides any evidence for an alternative explanation of the Battle of Puná to that of the Spanish chronicles, in the absence of which no alternative theory should be presented in this article. However, there is published work that calls into question the reliability of those chronicles and their specific agenda that could have led to outright distortion of the record. Should the questions about the accuracy of the chronicles be simply mentioned, with a possible link to a source that discusses it in more detail?
Scott Smith  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/New Jersey/njsr

message: Unfortunately, adding it to the category doesn't sort the roads properly. I don't see the point of the category when this template links to the list of state roads.
:Categories are seperate from lists.  Even if they may be redundant, they are needed for people that are navigating via the category namespace.  --ChrisRuvolo 20:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Both categories that New Jersey state highways as a subcategory also have New Jersey State Highways. So someone navigating via categories would see it.--SPUI 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the goal of having categories is to have every article in at least one category.  This has already been hashed out in Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Archive_1#Lists_v._categories.  I say keep both.  The more ways to group or access these pages, the better.  --ChrisRuvolo 06:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I thought so too.  I asked in #wikipedia and they suggested a database replication issue.  There's some delay before they might show up.  --ChrisRuvolo 08:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Saltasaurus

message: I couldn't verify the following, so I deleted it: 
:The Titanosaurus, first named in 1893 as a sauropod, had been reclassified as an ankylosaur when pieces of armour were found with some later skeletons. However, Saltasaurus showed that a dinosaur could be armoured and retain its status as a sauropod - Titanosaurus was duly restored to "sauropodhood". 
Osteoderms were mistakenly attributed to a nodosaurid ankylosaur, but I don't think Titanosaurus was ever mistaken for an ankylosaur....
68.81.231.127 17:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As far I know, the fossils from Saltasaurus coming from the Allen Formation, that is younger compared with the Anacleto Formation, where is located the Auca Mahuevo site. So, why are related here in the article? really exists remains that match with Saltasaurus in Auca Mahuevo?--Rextron (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, they were (perhaps) of saltasaurines, not saltasauri. I've adapted the text somewhat.--MWAK (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've forget this! thanks for the editions. --Rextron (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auca Mahuevo 
Talk:Central African Republic national football team

message: unsure of the kit colours some info from some random photos and some from fifa website --jmboothe 18:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The squad listing for matches in March 2021 has been vandalized or simply fabricated. The players are chosen at random and only few from them were called up for that term in fact. Leaving aside that the number of players is ridiculously low.
5.172.233.214 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squad as for March 2021 
Talk:Clark Ervin

message: Much of the biographical detail was taken from the DHS official biography.  They removed the content moments after I copied it, on the day he got canned.  Here's the link, but at the moment, it's dead.
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/biography/biography_0030.xml Wolfman 18:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Angwantibo

message: what does the potto eat?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.69.107 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

message: This article was mostly written in 2004, but there are no references for this part of the article. Can you suggest any sources that should be cited here? Jarble (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Scholar is your friend here. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More references are needed
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tightlacing

message: A sincere question: on the project page, a number of people recommend "resolving the conflict". Does this mean that anyone who shows up at Wikipedia, no matter how idiosyncratic his or her views, gets to insert them in an article? I've now worked on a number of controversial articles and I've got no problem with writing an account of widely-held views with which I disagree. But what if someone waaaaay out there wants to advance his views on the evils of microwaved food, or the necessity for twice-daily bowel movements? If he or she is the only person who believes this, exactly how is this opinion worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Zora 18:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:President of Mexico

message: I have added all the requests for citations from the article, thus, I think that the top  template can be safely removed. Having said that, and if no issues arise, I will remove it myself in a couple of weeks.
Moreover, I think that the request for more citations template placed for the Presidential powers section could be removed as well, as said powers are established by the Mexican Constitution. EOZyo (мѕğ) 10:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "More citations needed" at the top of the article
Talk:Intraocular lens

message: * Lede: "Surgeons annually implant more than 6 million lenses."
* Body: "...estimated by the World Health Organization to have increased to 20 million annually worldwide by 2010"
Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy Mabbett, the claims are not mutually exclusive, and could both be correct, but are both somewhat out of date. I will see if I can find something more current. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pbsouthwood How are they not mutually exclusive (other than that 20 million is indeed "more than 6 million")? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so;) Not very useful though. I have no access to the book which is even more out of date than the market report, which is more than 10 years old and pre-covid, so projections are even less reliable than they would normally be. Covid knocked a lot of medical projects back a fair bit, including large scale cataract projects like Vision2020. I have not found anything better yet. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Found a 2021 ref and made some changes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: "[...] but a systematic review of studies has determined that the procedure is safer than conventional laser eye treatment." 
The above statement in the introduction is very misleading for the following reasons:
* The only paper referenced for this claim barely qualifies as "a systematic review of studies" as it covers only 3 studies for a grand total of 228 eyes and dates back from 2014.
 
* More importantly, it omits to say that this study compared laser treatment to phakic IOL implantation (PIOL surgery). Phakic IOLs demonstrate better postoperative visual outcomes compared with pseudophakic implants.  We should compare LASIK to pseudophakic implants which are used (by definition) for refractive lens exchange (RLE) because RLE is the procedure commonly offered as an alternative to LASIK.
* "Safety" in the 2014 review refers to the loss of 1 or 2 lines of BSCVA after the operation, not the occurrence of retinal detachment or other serious vision-threatening complications 
* In conclusion, because "[s]erious complications are more common after RLE than after laser eye surgery or PIOL surgery [and] about 1 in 500 people have significant loss of vision after RLE", I propose to remove that claim from the introduction and give more details about the risks in the relevant sections further down in the body of the article. (Ref: Laser eye surgery and lens surgery) IOL-Facts (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety of IOL implantation vs LASIK 

message: — Assignment last updated by CanOBeans12 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research
Talk:Dissociation constant

message: The page is certainly decent content, however, its poorly written and the very title of the article far too vague. Furthermore, the information presented here is better shown in Acidity constant, solubility equilibrium and equilibrium constant. Theres nothing wrong inherently in the article, but I don't believe merging or any other possible solutions are appropriate. EagleFalconn 19:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem with a merge/redirect is that the term dissociation constant can refer to any number of things. It can be the solubility constant, which falls under solubility equilibrium, it could be acid dissociation constant, which is the acidity constant. The term is far too general to be any specific article, and while any dissociation constant is a subset of the equilibrium constant, they are not the same thing. EagleFalconn 16:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Votes for deletion 

message: "For amino acids, the pK1 constant refers to its carboxyl (-COOH) group, pK2 refers to its amino (-NH3) group and the pK3 is the pK value of its side chain."
Needs work.  Do we need a discussion of extrinsic and intrinsic pKs?Dankarl (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  amino acids 

message: Hello, I work in drug design.  The statement, "Therefore much pharmaceutical research is aimed at designing drugs that bind to only their target proteins (Negative Design) with high affinity (typically 0.1-10 nM) or at improving the affinity between a particular drug and its in-vivo protein target (Positive Design," bothered me a little bit.  I just wasn't entirely clear where 0.1-10nM came from, and I feel like this either needs a citation or the concentration range should probably just be dropped.  It may be too specific and hearsay for an encyclopedic entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.110.228 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protein-Ligand Binding Drug Design 

message: "when [\ce A] = K_d, [\ce B] = [\ce {AB}] or equivalently \tfrac {[\ce{AB}]}{{[\ce B]} + [\ce{AB}]} = \tfrac{1}{2}.  That is, Kd, which has the dimensions of concentration, equals the concentration of free A at which half of the total molecules of B are associated with A. " 
Are these two equivalent? Should this not read when[\ce a] = K_d, [\ce B/2] = [\ce {AB}]  ...
i.e. case 1.2 here: http://biowiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Biochemistry/Binding/Reversible_Binding%3A_1._Equations_and_Curves  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyone2 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just algebra.  In the defining equation with unit exponents, substitute A for Kd, divide through by A, then A/A = 1 = B/AB multiply by AB gives B=AB. If your book shows a different result check its definition of B. Dankarl (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Interpretation of Km
Talk:Cerium(IV) sulfate

message: Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table#C
is stated that this solubility is of Cerium(III)sulfate (III not IV)!
So either this information is wrong (it should be IV sulfate) or this solubility is wrong (because it is the information from the III compound). 
Please correct!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.213.74 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility wrong
Talk:Acute liver failure

message: shouldn't this be a stub? --Steven Fruitsmaak 16:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be deleted.  Fulminant liver failure = acute liver failure is not at all the same as chronic liver failure.  The article is completely mixed up in management and needs an entire rewrite.  It's on my list of things to do. -- Samir धर्म 06:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub? 

message: Fully agree with Samir's assessment. Will be fleshing this out when cirrhosis looks better.
 - MELD has an excessive false-positive rate when using it to screen candidates for OLT.
Stop me when I get too engrossed. JFW | T@lk 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know 

message: Desperately need some images especially to illustrate pathological changes. Only free image I could find was this Marburgh infection which do not show all findings.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 1600 cases in the USA annually. Most common cause is acetaminophen -  JFW | T@lk 21:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Useful review:  JFW | T@lk 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AASLD position statement:  JFW | T@lk 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bernal and Wendon are now in NEJM as well: doi:10.1056/NEJMra1208937 JFW | T@lk 14:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet 

message: Unless I'm Wolverine, I hope people know either they are misdiagnosed or have a body of a god. Funny thing is the liver actually regenerates and postings this wiki is just perpetuating many myths with does not help some who is dying. How about about the truth?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.185 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop spreading nonsense. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healing 

message: Once again reviewed doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31894-X JFW | T@lk 14:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet
Talk:Duboce Triangle, San Francisco

message: Like many names in San Francisco, the local pronunciations are worth documenting.
DouglasHeld (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Duboce" needs pronunciation key 

message: User:Trick said
: I haven't corrected anything but I don't think Mint Hill is really the same neighborhood. Duboce Triangle is really primarily west of Church St. I've heard Mint Hill used as a real estate industry pseudonym for Lower Haight. - Trick 07:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Mint Hill part of the triangle? 

message: The article states it is a sunny neighborhood, the afternoon fog roles in more often than not here in Duboce Triangle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1durphul (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor point, Duboce triangle is not a sunny neighborhood.
Talk:Librarian

message: The top picture does not reflect a librarian. It's not even a person and would be better in the section about librarians in popular culture (which I also think needs an update). I think the article would be better served by showing librarians doing actual librarianship. I'm looking into more pictures. There's quite a few nice ones of librarians "in action" on commons. I hope others weigh in, otherwise, I'll be bold and pick something out. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! This photo shows two librarians from San Francisco Public Library "in action" but honestly I'd be happy with anything you pick out. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Librarians_at_Bay_Area_WikSalon_-_2.jpg Merrilee (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do like that picture. I think we could use it in the article (which I think needs a lot of work!). But for the top picture, I really want to see an "action shot" of people in a library doing library stuff, and bonus for diversity! I haven't found the pic I'm "in love with" yet. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also just noticed that there's no section about librarians and Wikipedia! This article needs major work!!! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks. ElKevbo (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that librarians have helped improve Wikipedia through #1lib#1ref. It's not navel gazing if it's noteworthy. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Top picture

message: The main article's photo illustrating a librarian shows a librarian at a military base, "helping an airman". Librarians are not a topic one usually associates with the military, and while the military obviously have librarians, maybe this is not the best or most "general" photo to use? I vote we provide a better photo, of a librarian in a civilian context (I don't have such a photo or I would make the edit myself) The andf (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the observation. The photo generally shows a librarian helping a patron and that patron happens to be on a military base. I think the photo helps to usefully illustrate that librarians are everywhere, not just at the stereotypical public library. Merrilee (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better, non-military photo of a librarian?