lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Lützen (1813)

message: The article suggests that the battle ensued as Napoleon set a trap for the allies. I feel some doubts about this : Napoleon was short of cavalry, and thus probably had little idea of what allied forces were in the neighbourhood. I did read one or two articles about this battle, and i dont recall one of them regarding it as a trap set by Napoleon.
Also, with just one source listed i feel the base for this artcile is rather small
TeunSpaans (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. I absolutely agree that the article could use expansion and particularly wider sourcing, but this depends on editors with the interest, time and expertise willing to work on the article. I've tagged the trap reference as dubious but don't have the resources to do much more myself - of course, if you fancy a challenge your assistance in improving the article would be very welcome :) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the statement, which is unnecessary anyway; the sentence is now direct and factual. Languagehat (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  trap? 

message: On the Map there is only one allied unit retreating. This seems a bit odd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.215.185 (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retreat
Talk:Battle of Lynchburg

message: I do not believe the Confederate casualties of only 6 killed and 95 wounded out of a force of 14,000. From fighting on two days? The Battle of Tom's Brook was a big enough route that it is jokingly called the "Woodstock Races", yet the victor (Union) had 57 casualties for a force of 6,300. The Battle of Lynchburg was not that one-sided—the casualties listed do not make sense. TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the casualty figures based on modern National Park Service figures, replacing those from 19th century sources. Mojoworker (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Confederate losses are always probably reported less than what they actually were simply because their records were frequently incomplete, late (Jackson famously did not submit his reports for his valley campaign until late winter/early spring 1863 - almost a year after - look up Official Records, Vol. 12/2, p. 184 - Report of LTGEN T. J. JACKSON, Second Corps, Army of Northern Virginia, April 4, 1863), or nopt submitted at all. Add in a lot of revisionsim courtesy of the Lost Cause mythology/propaganda and you frequently see lopsided losses. Of course another factor was that U.S. forces were probably attacking more. Ahyhow, NPS has been doing a lot of research in the last 20 years trying to get more precise in CSA losses. My two cents. Boo Boo (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties
Talk:Battle of Lovejoy's Station

message: Can the action really be considered a Confederate victory ? In essence, Kilpatrick was on what wa essentially a raid, so losing the field of battle does not much matter. Casualties were essentially equal.
Zawadzki (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederate victory?
Talk:Battle of Lostwithiel

message: I've not found any revisions which have any content in this section. Looking at some battle website I can't find anything on a battle in 1642. However the Battle of Braddock Down, 19 January 1643, is not that far Lostwithiel, so this could be the intended battle.--Salix (talk): 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Battle of Lostwithiel, 1642
Talk:Battle of Lone Jack

message: Short, needs wikification, has no references. Carom 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Moved up to start class. Red Harvest (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded 
Talk:Battle of Lipany

message: I reverted changes, which take nonsenses in battlebox. If had one side 10,000 men and part of this escaped, it is not possible to have 12,000 death. Cinik 10:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 
Talk:Battle of Lens

message: Yes, there is a Lens in Hainaut, but the battle was fought near Lens in the Pas-de-Calais. The website of the city of Lens (http://www.villedelens.fr) and this website (http://bataillesdefrance.free.fr/periode_4/lens.html) leave no doubt that the battle had little to do with the Lens in today's Belgium. The latter site gives detailed information on troop movements through the environs of the French Lens (towns like Souchez, Liévin, Grenay, rivers like the Deule, etc etc). The wikipedia entries in French and Polish also place the battle in the Pas-de-Calais. (I am aware that other articles - notably the Spanish, Italian, and Russian wikipedia entries, and several across the internet - maintain the battle was fought at the Belgian Lens, but all of these articles seem to be translations or copies from the original English Wikipedia article.) Unless all the available French sites (and with them the denizens of Artois) are victims of inexplicable confusion, this English-language article is mistaken and should be fixed. Hubacelgrand 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article refers to the wrong Lens 

message: In the 'Political Consequences' section, a 'Ferdinand' is mentioned and a linked providedRobotBoy66 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Consequences - They Got the Wrong Ferd
Talk:Metallica: Some Kind of Monster

message: I think I read somewhere that Dave Mustaine wasn't upset about not being paid, but rather that they have used the footage of him with Lars with out his consent. He was also visibly upset that James Hetfield wasn't there, but that's besides the point. --LyTe (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if nobody can provide Citation for Mustaine's "comments," they should be deleted. --Trendkill (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just linked a respective interview excerpt. --Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Mustaine 

message: Or most pretentious rubbish ever to pass that slippery filter known as "NPOV"
:What began as documenting the making of an album (St. Anger) became an unexpected voyage into the complexities of human relationships, and the power of the creative process to exact emotional tolls and ultimately, to heal the soul.
FFS --81.151.13.200 (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... looking around the net, it appears to come directly from a press release about the movie. I'm changing it to say something similar without gushing and being promotional. --Neil Hunt (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple Prose Award 

message: it should be noted that the film has very good reviews, and i dont from where is the info about the opinions divided thing, all reviews that i found are very positive, rotten tomatoes for example gave it 88 % and many other critics praised it. --MetalCro (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception of the film 

message: Are all of the details about Phil Towle not "really" being a therapist relevant or even accurate at all? There is no clear citation to support these facts, and I'm not convinced, even if it were true, that it matters or helps the flow of the synopsis. --74.72.93.158 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Phil Towle extra details
Template talk:Mass City-Town Note

message: I would like to change the note by adding the word statutory, as in: it is a statutory city, taking out the emphais on is.
The claim it is a city is a little incomprehensible to those who live in other parts of the U.S., where the consequences of the name form of government are hazier, as many live in unincorporated towns, and even unincorporated city-sized locales. Silver Spring, Maryland comes to mind as a great example of a city that is an unincorporated part of the county.  Yellowdesk 13:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is called the "Town of ," it is a statutory city of Massachusetts.  
Yellowdesk 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying Massachusetts legal terminology
Talk:Bank of China

message: It will be cool to add ratings of this bank (in rating agencies like Standard & Poor etc.) to the page. Zarutskij Svyatoslav (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Can anyone add a bit about the founders and early history of the Bank of China?  162.84.72.171 17:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone incorporate these latest figures  for BOC's 3rd quarter results for 2006 into the statistics box on the main page please?  Jsw663 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old post
Talk:Adigrat

message: The article should cite sources regarding Buzunish Atsbeha, her relatives, and their two castles. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the reference to Buzunish Atsbeha as the article about her did not establish her notability, and neither does this one (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atsbeha). Again, some references regarding the castles in the town would be helpful. The tour book I happen to have on hand doesn't mention anything about castles in Adigrat. Google search for Adigrat castles did not turn up anything, for what that's worth. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buzunish Atsbeha 
Talk:UDP hole punching

message: I would very much like to see more information about the success or non-success of this method with common NAT-Router software/hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.164.245 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed section 

message: Hello all,
I read over the article and it felt wrong to me what was stated there.
In 3. it sounds like Alice who sends a packet to Bob now uses the address translation that was created when Bob contacted the skype server. But this would not work as the router saves an IP/port tuple to forward any messages. So it would reject the packet from Alice.
The trick is that Bob punches a hole himself when he contacts Alice on the revealed port. Either Alices or Bobs or noones first packet may be rejected by the corresponding router as the port forward is still set to establish a connection to the skype server and not the other buddies client.
Was that too wierd or could everyone follow me ? :)
: Some routers this is the case, but many save the external port and link that to the internal IP without caring what the external IP is. Ksevio (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The example is getting a little hard to follow - it might be better with some actual ports/IPs as examples.  #10 is also incorrect as the worst case scenario would be no connection if the NAT was port restricted. Ksevio (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: UDP as a protocol does not have connections from the point of view of the client/server, but from the point of view of a firewall/NAT, there is a connection between two clients passing through that needs to be kept open for data to be returned through. Ksevio (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The algorithm seems to be incomplete/wrong to me 

message: I suggest this article is merged with User Datagram Protocol. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Isn't https://samy.pl/pwnat/ worth a mention? 70.124.38.160 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samy Kamkar's 'pwnat' hack?
Talk:Charlestown, New Hampshire

message: Please see the WikiProject New Hampshire talk page for background on the proposed merge of the Charlestown CDP article with this article.--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 
Talk:Sable

message: A Sable is also an Antelope with backward curved horns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.18.146 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ″Sables inhabit dense forests dominated by spruce, pine, larch, CEDAR, and birch″ - I suggest removing Cedar from the list because the tree does not occur in Siberia where you find Sable. The mistake probably comes from a Russian source, in Russian Pinus sibericus is often colloquially called "cedar".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedrus
Marina sparrow (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: I suggest removing Cedar

message: Should we add a section on "sables in literature and media"?  We might want to mention the movie Gorky Park.Interlingua 03:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sables in literature and media"
Talk:Battle of Methven

message: The Macdougall lords of Argyll should not be cross-referenced to the later dukes of Argyll.  There is not the least connection between the two.
Rcpaterson 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argyll and Lorne 

message: Since the neutrality of this article was disputed - more than two years ago - there have been a lot of alterations made. I see nothing remaining in it that strikes me as being particularly biassed. Nothing has appeared on the Discussion Page since May 2006, so there seems to be no ongoing dispute. I have therefore removed the POV tag. If anyone else sees anything objectionable still in the article, then by all means restore the POV tag. But let us not tag it and then leave it unattended for another two years (!) Flonto (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute
Talk:Battle of Megiddo (609 BC)

message: Isn't it a bit disrespectful that a cross symbol is used to denote the death of a Jewish king?
:: It's a dagger, not a cross. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: unsigned

message: Just to note that some of this has been copied with no edit summary attributing it to the original article (and thus the editor(s) whose work it is) at Jehoahaz of Judah. Technically this is copyvio.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath section 

message: I find I can no longer assume good faith with this editor.  He has been found to have committed a number of copyright violations (copyvios) and was temporarily blocked for these.  Most were quite flagrant from other websites, and I would be surprised if all have been found. Some are all too common on Wikipedia, such as the one I mentioned above which was his and his copy and paste of material from Armageddon in the discussion in this article on the topography of the battle. These would not be copyvios is he had provided a link in the edit summaries to the articles he took them from (and he needs to follow Wikipedia guidelines and use edit summaries more).  The bit around the text "proceeding through the low tracts of Philistia and Sharon, prepared to cross the ridge of hills" has been plagiarised from an 1886 article by Professor George Rawlinson at . This not only brings Wikipedia into disrepute, but it makes for bad, unreliable articles when editors use uncited stuff from other articles or plagiarise 19th century publications. I'm removing most of his edits. --Doug Weller (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said the above, he has worked hard on Wikipedia and started a number of articles.  If he could learn to keep his personal opinions out of articles, always give citations and use edit summaries,and never copy from anything else, I would probably be praising him instead of criticising him and he could be a very valuable editor. --Doug Weller (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Egyptzo]]'s edits 

message: Would this (namely, the Talmud and other later Jewish Sources) be acceptable for use in information for how the battle possibly played out? I mean, in the article about the battle, how it occured, troop numbers, equipment, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paceinator (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmud and Jewish Works as Source to Information About the Battle
Talk:Battle of Mbwila

message: I am proposing deletion of the section in "Aftermath" that describes the connection between the deportation of losing people in the battle and the formation of the runaway community of Palmares of Brazil.  This was put in text in 10 January 2014 by a user with only an IP address. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for such a connection, but I will wait some days before finalizing the deletion to allow for discussion.
:Yeah, this section is strange, it says:
:: "at some point in 1630 [...] princess Aqualtune (who led a battalion during the battle), [...] appeared enslaved in [...] Brazil"
:but the battle was fought in 1665, in Africa. 177.104.112.3 (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Reference to Palmares
Talk:Battle of Medina Ridge

message: The American side of the infobox describes the number of killed and wounded. Since we don't know the killed and wounded on the Iraqi side, we should say that it is unknown. Referring to "manpower losses" could mean the Americans captured all the Iraqis. Of course, it doesn't mean that, because we know Iraqis were killed and wounded. Therefore we should be specific. Faulty (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox casualties

message: I believe the wording when the article states "All four were lost." is unintentionally misleading, as even in other Articles on this, namely the History of the M1 Abrams and Gulf War, state that all the tanks that the US lost were due to friendly fire or intentional destruction to prevent capture. This article takes the stance that all the tanks were lost, which isn't true, one was a complete loss, and the three others were repairable. 
I think it should be phrased from "All four were lost." to "Out of all four Abrams that were struck, one was a complete loss, as for the other three, they were disabled but could be repaired." or something of that sort.
Also, this article seems to leave out the possible friendly fire from Apaches, which should be stated as to why the one that was destroyed wasn't considered lost to enemy fire, though of course it isn't certain if the destroyed one was from T-72, an AT Weapon, or Hellfire. 
Edit: I changed my wording on the rephrasing of "All four were lost.", to add that the Tanks were disabled.
Learning Historian (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Four Abrams "Lost"
Talk:Battle of Maxen

message: The article says the Austrians attacked with an army of 40,000; the infobox gives the Austrians 32,000. Which is correct? Also, seeing as the result of the battle was the destruction and capture of the entire Prussian force, I think this should be called a DECISIVE Austrian victory. Milhisfan (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian Numbers and Victory
Talk:Battle of Maychew

message: While an effort has been done to write this article in neutral language, it still written from the italian/western viewpoint. An army that want to conquer a contry, and meets obstacles on its way.
How about writing this from Ethiopian viewpoint? A society and an army that is well organised but with very inferior armament. How they see the invaders come and how they try to cope with it. This needs use of Ethiopian literature. I'll start with writing the place names in their current transliteration (so far Italian spelling is used), but there is much more to do. Jnyssen (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethiopian point of view insufficiently rendered
Talk:Goat locker

message: I am interested in the history, and origins of the "Chiefs Mess". On what ship was it found necessary to create an area stictly for the CPO. How did come to be that "all" shall remove cover and knock prior to entry, including officers?
::Well, I am not sure of the history, but as a serving Navy officer, I think the general sentiment is that Chiefs are deserving of their own space...to be respected by all and sundry.  It is analagous to the Wardroom (although Chiefs can be members of that in certain ashore commands) or Officers' Country.  It's taken seriously.  When I was doing an inspection of our spaces, I had to find a Chief to take me into the Goat Locker.  I couldn't just barge in, even on official business.BulldogPete 14:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Seeing as how CPO's didn't exist until 1893... at the closing point of the age of sail, it is highly unlikely the term 'goat locker' was due to a goat being kept in the Chief's mess on sailing ships... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macboots (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Goat Locker
Talk:Agawam, Massachusetts

message: I read, the name Feeding Hills came from the revolutionary war, when cattles were reared for the army. Is this right? --Wiki-Chris (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Feeding Hills
Talk:Battle of Mantinea (362 BC)

message: — Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece

message: — Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece
Talk:Battle of Maloyaroslavets

message: Currently, the article says:
 This allowed Kutuzov to fulfill his strategic plans to force Napoleon on the way of retreat in the north, through
 Mozhaisk and Smolensk, the route of his advance that he had wished to avoid.
This I understand to mean "Kutuzov forced Napoleon to go to Smolensk". At the same time, the article about the Battle of Vyazma states in the "background" section:
 Napoleon's objective at this stage (a week before Maloyaroslavets) of the retreat was to lead the Grande Armée to 
 his closest major supply depot, Smolensk
So did Napoleon want to go to Smolensk, or was he forced to go there? There seems to be some contradiction between the two articles... Or am I missing something? -- Syzygy (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Napoleon did indeed want to go (back) to Smolensk, but apparently wanted to take a southerly route via Kaluga. This was now firmly occupied by the Russians, forcing Napoleon to take the northern route via Mozhaisk. This was the route he had taken on the inbound journey from Smolensk to Moscow, so it had already been thoroughly foraged. Backtracking there left the French with less supplies than they would have had access to on the southern route. A humble contributor (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smolensk or bust?