lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Princess Louise Margaret of Prussia

message: According to Google:
Princess Louise Margaret of Connaught 42,500
Princess Louise Marguerite of Connaught 763
Princess Louise Margarete of Connaught 424
So I'm going to move this to the more common name. Marguerite is more French anyway, isn't it? Morhange 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support For some degree of internal consistency and also because I have encountered this princess as "of Prussia. Charles 22:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: She died  of influenza, but she was not a casualty of the 1917-1918 influenza epidemic! This disease was first observed in 1918, half a year after the death of the princess. --92.195.65.249 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting this. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: In the ancestry tree, the parents of Leopold IV, Duke of Anhalt-Dessau are shown to be Leopold III and Margravine Louise (#s 6, 12, and 13).  All three of the linked articles show that they are actually Leopold IV's grandparents.  His parents are Frederick III and Christiane Amalie.  Frederick III's parents are Leopold III and Louise.    Laogro (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: The article was assessed as C-class, for lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary
Talk:Thomas Digges

message: An illustration of the Copernican universe can be seen here.? Where? Kingturtle (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: I'm no historian, but I strongly suspect that the details about Cambridge added today by Vicspolis are wrong.  It seems generally agreed that Thomas Digges' father Leonard Digges was born no earlier than 1515 (in Oxford DNB; Wikipedia says 1520) which seems to rule out a birth date of 1530 for Thomas.  See also http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/digges_tho.html, which claims that there is confusion between two different individuals.
Please note also that the entry as it stands mentions John Dee's guardianship of Thomas, after the death of his father.  But his father died in 1559, so a birth date of 1530 would make Thomas 29 at his father's death - not the age needing a guardian! 
Happy to leave things for a day or two, to see if more scholarship emerges.   But, if not, it would be safer not to include the claims about Cambridge, and the 1530 birth, and I'll edit them out.
Eebkent (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth
Talk:Erasmus Reinhold

message: Of this article's six paragraphs, two had very little to do with the subject. I have removed them. They were copied from the article about Owen Gingrich.
Arthur Koestler in 1959 wrote in "The Sleepwalkers"'s chapter "II THE SYSTEM OF COPERNICUS" about De revolutionibus orbium coelestium: "The Book that Nobody Read - the Book of the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres was and is an all-time worst-seller." After finding in the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh a thoroughly annotated copy previously owned by Erasmus Reinhold, Owen Gingerich was inspired to check Koestler' claim and research who had owned and studied the book's only editions prior to the mid-19th century, the original of 1543 in Nuremberg, and the second in 1566, Basel. His three-decade-long personal survey of Copernicus’ great book De revolutionibus was recounted in The Book Nobody Read, published in 2004 by Walker & Co. That book and the research behind it earned him the Polish government’s Order of Merit in 1981.
Gingerich in 1973 also documented "The Role of Erasmus Reinhold and the Prutenic Tables in the Dissemination of the Copernican Theory".
That Owen Gingrich received Communist Poland's Order of Merit - 23 years before publishing his book - does not belong in an article about Erasmus Reinhold. One also wonders about Reinhold's role in spreading the Copernican Theory, as the article points out that he altered Copernicus' data to promote the older geocentric view. Finally, that, as is mentioned here, it took over two decades for Copernicus' book to see its first reprint, only underscores what Koestler stated in the first place, that the book had a miserable sales history. None of this has anything to do with Erasmus Reinhold.
I have, of course, left in the reference to Gingrich's book and the link to his Wikipedia page. B00P (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gingerich

message: I have removed a counter-factual statement from the article.
Reinhold was a member of the Melanchthon Circle, a group of Lutheran mathematicians associated with Melanchthon who were generally friendly to Copernican astronomy.
To state that "Lutheran mathemeticians associated with Melanchthon ... were generally friendly to Copernican astronomy" is pure rubbish. Not only does the article point out that Reinhold modified Copernicus' data to fit the old geocentric system, Melanchthon, himself, in his textbook Doctrines of Physics (1549), attempted to refute the Copernican system.
B00P (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Melanchthon
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories

message: If no one objects, I'd like to subdivide this list between regular categories and user categories (e.g. "Category:Wikipedians who collect antique mattresses"). I have no objection to such categories, but I feel that our focus should be on fixing things in the regular space first (just as we put user pages last when fixing article links). Any thoughts? bd2412 T 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. :Category:Wikipedians who have created singleton categories for themselves can wait. Bo Lindbergh 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So doing, then. bd2412 T 02:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User categories

message: I have fixed Newhaven, as it is no longer a disambiguation page - all but one link to Newhaven was about Newhaven, East Sussex, so I changed Newhaven to redirect there adding  to the top of that article.
However when I edit the list of Disamb pages with links I cannot find Newhaven in the code as it is such a big section! If you manage to find it, can you delete it for me?
kylet 11:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Newhaven]]
Talk:Solution set

message: I just added a section "other meanings", to speak of the set of solutions to any kind of equation, inequality or so.
It is still much of a "stub". 
I didn't want to modify it too heavily, but I think that this more general meaning should get a better position (if not become the first to be discussed) in the article (in a less abstract form), and the "set of roots of set of polynomials" meaning should be in one section (i.e. below a common ==title==, with current ==...== to become ===...===).
— MFH:Talk 22:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

message: What does w.r.t. mean? --Abdull 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  w.r.t. 

message: Can you provide a reference for this statement that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont have access to a good library any more, so I can’t provide a reference. You might look in any linear programming textbook (or text on optimization in general) for this. It’s pretty much tautologically true: The feasible region of a constrained optimization problem is the solution set of the constraints simply says that the set of permissible points is the set of points that are permissible. Loraof (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constrained optimization
Talk:Frankie Wilde

message: I've edited this article to take the bias out.  While, indeed, Frankie Wilde is a fictional character, it is not the intended point or sole reason for having an article about him on Wikipedia.
Rowlan 22:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View ([[WP:NPOV|NPOV]])
Talk:Corfield v. Coryell

message: Changed last paragraph from:
This passage was quoted on multiple occasions by the sponsor of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, during congressional debates on the Amendment, as giving an indication of what was meant by the phrase "privileges and immunities" as it is used in Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is often cited by those who advocate a broader reading of the Fourteenth Amendment "privileges and immunities" clause than the Supreme Court gave in Slaughterhouse Cases.
This was very wrong.  First of all, John Bingham was not the amendment's sponsor.  Stevens and Howard were.  Second, Bingham did not cite it on multiple occasions, and whenever he did, it was as an example of an incorrect reading of the phrase.  Bingham certainly did not agree with Justice Washington's assessment.  See discussion in the Fourteenth Amendment article for a citation of a speech in which Bingham stated that the phrase "privileges or immunities" encompassed all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights.  Finally, where Washington's reading of the phrase was cited (by Howard when introducing the Fourteenth Amendment), it was cited as a touchstone from which the Congress could postulate what the judicial reading of the term would be.  Additionally, when Howard cited Washington's evaluation, he suggested that the guarantees of the first eight amendments should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.47.135.207 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Scutum

message: Nice article. Consider one slight change: 1.06 meters is not 48 inches. 1.06/.0254 = 42 inches. 198.145.78.119 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One slight change

message: That enormous template has seriously warped the article.  I'd suggest that it be moved so that it does not cause that giant Siberia-like white space in the center of the article. Larry Dunn 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Any reports on the strength of the Scutum, that is, the amount of force that it could resist?  Perhaps tests have been done on recreations?  I've heard stories that under Parthian arrow attack, legionnaires would double or even triple their sheilds, to no avail.  The Parthians still got penetration. Antarctica moon (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strength?

message: Was there just a single handle under the bus?  Or could the shield be strapped to the arm with two straps? Antarctica moon (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Handles?
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Proposed decision

message: Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation, consulting sources, and mediation. Where users are unwilling to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, measures may be taken to stop the disruptive behavior without their participation. is interesting. And might be useful. Do the arbitrators mean that, in future, editors felt to be disruptive, but perhaps not so obviously disruptive that they could be blocked just for that, and who refuse to participate in RFC/RFA, may be blocked? William M. Connolley 22:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Hi, I realize that voting is well underway, and it probably doesn't make a difference anyways, but it may be worth taking this  (scroll down to the bottom) into account when deciding if a one year ban is sufficient. In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained by letting neo-Nazis spread their filth on Wikipedia, ever. –Joke 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: profoundly disturbing remarks

message: don't know where this came from, but it seems wrong....
under "Licorne made POV edits against consensus", one of the URLs is this one:  - this is actually a revert on a Licorne PoV edit. The Licorne edit is actually a series of edits preceding that (for some time, he seemed to believe that if he made a series of edits, people wouldn't revert the whole thing). Should this URL be changed in the evidence? --Alvestrand 20:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit bizarre URL in proposed decision 

message: the cited examples of original research seem like POV-pushing to me, not OR - the quotes point to things that others have claimed before him - see relativity priority disputes.
there is, however, a very clear case of NOR violation on the evidence page (the Winterberg case). --Alvestrand 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research?
Talk:Amazon insects

message: There are about 2,800 to 3,1100 spp of butterflies in the Amazon. the number of tree species is estimated between 6,000 and 8,000. This article lets enthusism for the subject inflate the numbers. Currently (2008) we have 14 species of invertebrates on the endangered species list for Pará state, Brazil.--Wloveral (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us not over estimate
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Bulbasaur/archive1

message: Celestianpower, why are you deleting comments made by Gnangarra and replaced (after the first delete) by BlueShirts? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase the FARC is closed and delisted (Jeffrey O. is in charge of this process) so any further comments should be reverted (Gnangarra commented after the delisting). --Celestianpower háblame 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does it say that the page cannot (or should not) be edited after it is delisted? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussion is both pointless (at this level, anyway, as discussions are ongoing elsewhere) and gives a false sense of consensus when this Farc is cited when the second one inevitably springs up.  Further edits to the Farc itself will be reverted - feel free to make your views known on this issue in the many places where fruitful discussion is taking place.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Rushlight

message: A proper rushlight is just a piece of fat-soaked plant stem. It does not really match the Wikipedia definition of a candle which says, "A candle is a source of light, and sometimes a source of heat, consisting of a solid block of fuel (commonly wax) and an embedded wick." The rushlight has no block of fuel distinct from its wick.
So, I guess the opening sentence in this article (A rushlight is a type of candle formed using the dried pith of the rush plant as its wick) is incorrect. But I'm not sure how rushlights should be categorized. As very small torches? Rikat (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  type of candle? 

message: Described in chapeter VII how to make rush lights. Freely downloadable from Project Gutenberg. I see the article only references this described in another book - why not reference the original? 92.15.13.152 (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then why not do it ?  Velella  Velella Talk   14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cottage Economy by [[William Cobbett]] 

message: I believe that this editor was trying to improve the article, but in doing so has eliminated the only illustration and all the citations.  Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, depends upon having citations to support all facts.  Any uncited fact may be challenged by another editor as part of the effort to produce the best summary of accepted, authoritative knowledge.  Some of the editor's efforts were directed to reordering sections, but other changes were unsupported and removed existing cited sources.  This is the first and (so far) only edit by this IP, I would encourage the anonymous editor to register and then through their talk page seek help in the Wikipedia way of doing things. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 109.78.99.243
Talk:Naiad

message: I was wondering in Greek Mythology is there any reference or mention of whether Water Nymphs including Naidas are warm or cold blooded?I am asking because this information could help further understand the myth and legends of this creature. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Nymphs Warm or Cold blooded? 

message: The Nymphs from Shakespeare's The Tempest are referred to as Naiades: "Iris. You nymphs, call'ed Naiades, of the windring brooks," Perhaps this belongs in the Popular Culture section, or maybe a new In Literature section? 209.240.183.45 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tempest 

message: Is there a reason that the link to Poe looks like this? The correct spelling is "Allan".
*Edgar Allen Poe, Sonnet to Science 1829
If no reason for this, then I am going to change it. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of Edgar Allan/Allen Poe?
Talk:Carla Azar

message: are you sure, 'carla's new elbow' (the picture in 'personal life') isn't her(?) shoulder, upside down?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.213.177 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  elbow = shoulder?  

message: Why is her Waterboys history being removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.165.166 (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, she has no history before 2001, which should include a friendship with Jeff Buckley and co-writing credits on at least one song. I don't know about notability, but his song "Last Goodbye" was also suggested (in "| A Pure Drop") to have been written about her. DrHacky (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Carla played in the Spirit of Atlanta Drum & Bugle Corps in 1982 (10 years old?), as well as with the Blue Devils Drum & Bugle Corps in 1984. She recorded with Wendy& Lisa when she was 14 or 15? She attended the Musicians Institute in LA and was a classmate and friend of Jeff Buckley’s. This article just needs adequate citations to include this info. Design (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early days 

message: The source given for the claim that she is Lebanese-American does not support the claim.  Nowhere does that site make any mention of her ethnicity.  The surname is Persian (Iranian).Cromulant (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanese-American
Talk:Conversation Piece (song)

message: How is this a country rock song? It talks about anonymity in the city and an isolated academic. The style isn't country either.
:I agree, dont see how it's a country song. I also don't see any indications of suicide in the lyrics. The guy's just sad..Janpeder (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Dario Marianelli

message: Just wikified the existing article and added a filmography and DOB from IMDB.  Cleaned up the language of the existing article.  Did not add much otherwise.
--Ber06122 23:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The tagged section needs to be put into a table, in chronological order (oldest first), with column for name of film and notes and/or awards.  I will come back to this later if no one else starts it.  If you could, however, please do.  Justi521 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag
Talk:Tibullus

message: The section on Life and Works needs to be broken down into clearer subsections.
The Latin quotes should also be translated.--Iacobus 03:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Is it just a 'bot going around fussing about a "single source" article? If the single source is the EB, that's not inconsequential. Better that than a made-up bunch of nonsense by a few freshmen trying to document their own faulty research the night before a term paper is due (been there, seen that, as an instructor). That's when the notion that "Internet research is like working from something assembled overnight by pack rats and dismantled by mice" holds. The items in this article that might need fixing do not, too me, appear to stem from its derivation from a single source. In fact, I believe ALL W'pdia articles started with the EB, the Cath.Ency, and a few others as a beginning point...96.237.240.194 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Source issues?

message: is unneeded () and mostly unhelpful, being inaccurate for classical Latin and unnecessary for modern English. If the pronunciation is felt to be helpful and necessary by others, peachy, but you're going to need a  for it and not just a personal opinion. — LlywelynII 15:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: IPA
Talk:History of County Kildare

message: With its reference to 'landed Catholic rebels', the notes on 1642 read like a nineteenth-century Anglican clergyman's account of early-modern Irish History.86.46.222.197 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the move of the article, i think the name is more appropriate to the MOS that would be use in these types of articles. My concerns are, how this reads, it kinda bounces around alot, and their is no real flow to the article, their is also no introduction. Second is extraneous information note really related to the county history, but i see you are looking into that. Third is integration with the main article, County Kildare, a snysopisis of the history should be given in that article that relates to this article, with users being directed to this article for a more in depth look at the subject. It seems though you have a good idea on what what you want to do already, and that being a kildare man, your better situated that what i would be in improving the txt of the article. FYI, i did remove the two infoboxes as they are more/better situated for the main county articles then the history articles, i also removed one cat. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nod. Cormaggio @ 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've merged some sections, more from the first half of the article. I now think we need to condense some of the latter bits, maybe like creating a section on simply the 20th century and merging the various sections into larger ones by a time period or a significant marker. I'm not sure about the space devoted to things like Maynooth University or the Curragh barracks - these are the kinds of things I would prefer to see mentioned here and linked to in more detail on their own articles. What do people think? Cormaggio @ 11:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have just removed a passage of text  that appeared to be totally wrong: it mixed up the hypothetical "Book of Kildare" (an apparent early medieval gospel book that is known only from a later report and probably was simply the Book of Kells) both with the 14th century Kildare Poems (B.L. Ms Harley 913) and with the unrelated "Ich am of Irlaunde" text of Bodleian Ms Rawlinson D.913 , falsely spoke of "some of the earliest poems and carols in the English language" (when what is at issue here is merely the first English texts in Ireland), and also introduced the alleged name of a poet ("Hugh FitzBernard") which does not appear anywhere in the relevant literature and actually contradicts the authorship attribution of the existing poems under the cited title, which is "Michel Kyldare". This jumbled mess sat unchallenged, unchanged and unsourced in this article for over four years, since the very first edits (by a user who was indef-blocked shortly after ). 
I am afraid the whole rest of the article will need some thorough fact-checking too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable contents
Talk:Trepidation

message: I don't think this is a stub anymore. It has as much information as any reasonable person would want. Maestlin 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

message: What is the origin of this word? Bongomatic 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trepidation CielProfond (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology