lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Safe

message: It would be good to have a listing of the various ratings on safes, for both UL and CE:
Something like: http://www.geocities.com/ghardigree/id6.htm
(but of course, properly referenced to the original specifications at UL and CE)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.152.118 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings?

message: I propose that Henry Brown (inventor) be merged into Safe#History. Due to the small amount of information about Brown's life, I think having the information about his invention in the Safe article is acceptable. I have already taken the liberty to add the information about Brown to the article in a new history section. I hope you will support me in this merger, thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Instead, expand the article about Henry Brown, if possible. Tens of thousands of athletes / sports competitors are on Wikipedia, obscure cricked players that only played for 1-2 years somewhere in India decades ago. Use the "Random article" function for a while to see what i mean. This guy did something real, the article is easy to maintain, and more data might follow.188.104.98.212 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Corporate memory

message: What a silly names are constructed with Corporate... Why not simpler organizational...?! I understand selling efforts... Sorry folks, but encyklopedija is not a collection of buzzwords. Definition needs more precision and clearness.--AndriuZ 09:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia policy (see WP:MM#Overlap), I propose that this article is merged with the article on Knowledge Management, as the similarity of the content of the article is striking, even if the titles are different. Otherwise I would be suspicious that the article had been created to promote a book, service or college course and, as such, would be worthy of deletion. 
-- Gavin Collins 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the alternative, merge with Organizational memory which refers to the same concept Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merger with Knowledge Management 

message: I suggest merging with Organizational memory, which refers to the same concept and is much more frequently used in the literature - and then delete this article. On the other hand, "knowledge management" should be kept separate as it encompasses organizational memory -- josei 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, suggest it be merged with Organizational memory as you are correct, it does refer to the same concept Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Institutional memory as well. --Cat4567nip (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Agree --Lmourao (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Organizational Memory article
Talk:9: The Last Resort

message: (This was posted to my user page) —EatMyShortz 10:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I at no time said "ALL" of your subsequent changes were incorrect. Don't read words that weren't there. The official title of this game is "9"; twenty million people COULD call it "The Last Resort" but that doesn't make it the official title. The Internet Movie Database title entry is simply "9" 1. No length of straw man argument will change that very simple fact. Please make the reversions as requested. I'd prefer not to have this escelate to mediation. Pacian 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title
Talk:Manfred Gnädinger

message: * At least two pictures would be needed: one of man himself, and one of his sculptures. 
* Precise birth date and confirmation of his death date are needed. Ze miguel 10:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the date of the ship sinking. I wasn't able to find the exact date of when the spill reached Camelle. Ze miguel 14:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TODO 
Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/2005 October 17

message: I have removed a number of images added by Idleguy, because the images are not copyright violations. They've been claimed correctly under the fair-use provision, and in some of the examples, the copyright holder has been made aware of the use, and has made no objection, though the images are not being used with permission either. They're being used to illustrate the page in question, there is nowhere else to get them from, they have no commercial value, and are being used educatively. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:New Patriotic Party

message: Changed spelling of 2008 candidate's name to accepted English spelling which now properly links to wikipedia article. 65.113.71.3 (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The problem with the adjective attached to the sentencewhere citiation is required is, i would say, mostly due to the ambiguty of the adjective. In fact in european context liberal means more "center-rightist", keen on liberalizations and market economy (in US would be called conservative). In US it is very different, cause "liberal", especially after mcarthism, started to mean almost "left-winged", as an alternative to the "conservatives", that are right winged. So it must be better specified what it is meant with "liberal", cause aùotherwise means nothing, or can be even deceiveing--Desyman44 (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more "liberal"
Talk:Second Anglo–Dutch War

message: The result was the Four Days Battle, one of the longest naval engagements in history. Despite administrative and logistic difficulties, a fleet of eighty ships under General at Sea George Monck, the Commonwealth veteran, (after the Duke of Albemarle) set sail at the end of May 1666.
However, the battlebox of Four Days Battle says the English had 79 ships.
...Albemarle came upon De Ruyter's fleet of 85 ships at anchor...
On the other hand, according to the battlebox of Four Days Battle, the Dutch had 84 ships
At daylight on 2 June, Albemarle's strength was reduced to 44 ships...
He started with 60 ships (the total 80 minus the 20 Prince Rupert took). This means that 
60 - 44 = 16 ships were lost. However, according to the battlebox of Four Days Battle, the English only lost 10 ships. This article also says that
The battle ended with both sides claiming victory: the English because they contended Dutch Lieutenant Admiral Michiel de Ruyter had retreated first, the Dutch because they had inflicted much greater losses on the English, who lost ten ships against the Dutch four.
Possibly some of the 16 ships were damaged rather than sunk but if so, this should be specified both in the battlebox and in the paragraph speaking about the reduction to 44
Top.Squark (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of eighty ships is meant to be a general indication. Fleets had a number of secondary warships such as galliots, advice yachts and fireships, so its hard to be accurate. The reduction of Albemarle's strength indeed included ships retreated from the battle. If the damage was too severe, ships were sent home.--MWAK (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

text: The point is that the English tried to take over Dutch trade and colonies and reduce the Dutch Republic to a secondary power. It was not some minor skirmish with limited war aims but an attempt to gain World Trade Dominance, to replace the Dutch as the movers and shakers (or, if you like, wheelers and dealers :o) of global finance and trade. To prevent this from happening was a major victory for the Dutch.--MWAK (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions with [[Four Days Battle]]
Talk:First Anglo-Dutch War

message: ...Cromwell... made a proposal of 27 articles, two of which were utterly unacceptable to the Dutch: ...that Denmark, the ally of the Republic, should be abandoned in its war against Sweden
Why were the Dutch helping Denmark? Why did Cromwell take a pro-Swedish position? Was Cromwell motivated by the role of Sweden in the Thirty Years war?
Top.Squark (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Swedish and Dutch-Danish alliances? 

message: At the moment this article states:
:(Dates in this article are given in the Gregorian calendar, then ten days ahead of the Julian calendar in use in England.)
This is unusual for an article about English history at this time see ([[Old Style and New Style dates), and it means that the dates in this article do not match up with those in other article about the same period. For example I came here because I am writing a list of English knights under the Protectorate. As I am doing that I am creating biographies for those men who were knighted for which no biography exists. I am currently creating a biography for an English naval captain who fought in the Civil War and the First Anglo-Dutch War.  It means that the dates in this article do not tie in with those in his article which means that to be consistent it would be necessary to dual date that article (and as there are literally 100 of such articles: See for example Richard Deane and his death. As far as I can tell most English language sources use Julian dating, that that article should use them as well. This would place this article in line with MOS:OSNS. -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates 

message: who does 'him' refer to in this sentence? Eibocaj (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Although the States of Holland and West Friesland were unwilling etc. 

message: I just caught damage done to the text four years ago (in 2019) by an irate anonymous editor who wildly inserted his two cents worth without taking account of the damage he did to the surrounding text. He/she even gave an incomplete reference, which prompted a Wikipedia patroller to add a demand for a page reference, without noticing that the surrounding text was incoherent (which  looks like a dereliction of duty to me :-). I first noticed the break accidentally, while copy-editing, and then spent two hours tracing back in the revision history to find the original vandalism. Though the surrounding text was repeatedly edited by reputable editors, nobody apparently noticed that the sentence was awkward. Also nobody reacted to the demand for a citation. I have just now restored the deleted original passage (now with a reference, which also took some time to find, as the original text was not mine). My point: some people get so enraged by this article and what other people dare put in it, that they commit (no doubt with the best intentions) what amounts to vandalism. I wonder if it is not time to ask for semi-protected status for the article? Ereunetes (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotionally charged editing leads to damage to the text
Talk:Splitting field

message: Let F be any field, and f be a monic polynomial of degree n in F[X]. This polynomial is said to split in F if it factors completely, i.e., factors as a product of n linear factors x-ri. The ri are then the roots of f, that is, the solutions of the equation f(x)=0. If K is some extension of F, we likewise say f splits in K if can be written as a product (x-r_1)(x-r_2)...(x-r_n) of n linear factors in K[X]. 
           Clearly f then splits also in F(r_1,r_2,...,r_n), the subfield of K generated by the roots. We say that K is a splitting field of f over F if f splits in K and K=F(r_1,r_2,...,r_n).
See also:  [ Construction Of splitting Feilds  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_splitting_fields  ]
Rich Farmbrough 11:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Splitting Feild : Definition''' 

message: Dear User:EmilJ: Thanks for your editing. Can you, please, explain me the following:
You removed ω3 from this equation but left 22/3. I think that only terms a, b, c and d should be included.
TomyDuby (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the extension has degree 6, not 4. ω3 is a rational linear combination of the other basis elements, namely \omega_3=-1-\omega_2. In contrast to this, 22/3 cannot be written as a linear combination of the other basis elements. — Emil J. 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equation for L: The extension has degree 6, do not introduce redundant terms. 

message: Seems to make sense. Rather than having two separate articles, both of which begin by defining the same concept, it seems logical to me that the "Construction" article be merged into this article, as its own section to begin with. --70.53.193.251 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but this discussion seems to be stale. Who's going to do it? Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree and I will do it. Bender2k14 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  Done. Bender2k14 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging content from [[Construction of splitting fields]] 

message: I think the definition is not correct. As the polynomial p is arbitrary over K, the coefficient of the highest power is not necessarily equal to 1.Madyno (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition
Talk:Cambridge Apostles

message: Some of the information in this article is sourced to .  Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any near contemporary archives of this page.  This web page is being used to justify the claim 'It was a point of honour that the question voted on should bear only a tangential relationship to the matter debated.'  Identical text appears in the source and the article.
I've identified the point at time when this claim first appeared in Wikipedia - it was on 8 January 2007.
* 
As the King's College article appears to come from January 2011, it seems clear that it isn't the original source, so I'll remove the reference to avoid problems.
The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent circular reference
Template talk:WikiProject Video games

message: please change :File:Fez (video game) "BIG GOMEZ".png to :File:Fez (video game) "BIG GOMEZ".svg. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 11 March 2023 

message: I'd like to suggest adding :File:Monokuma Eye.svg as the image for the visual novel task force (parameter TF_8_IMAGE), Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 March 2023 

message: So I noticed because of this edit that  doesn't inherit the classification entered in , and categorizes it as unclassified. The change was implemented and some banners do inherit it, but not this one. Is this a bug in the meta banner or in our template? SWinxy (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Late response: it's on purpose, because we don't have A-class but WPBS does. --PresN 01:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not inheriting classification
Talk:Barbara (singer)

message: I was hoping to find which album "Septembre" is in but this article disappointed me.
Lhw1 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should have a go at compiling one. Headhitter (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no discography? 

message: Is there anything we know, and might add, about her personal life? Headhitter (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there is mention of her marriage in the "Musical development section" - I've moved that to a new "Personal life" section. Headhitter (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: Do we know why, in deciding to go to Germany, she particularly chose Göttingen? Headhitter (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: She was invited by Hans-Gunther Klein, a theatre director in Göttingen (ref). Florn (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Göttingen 

message: Can anybody clarify the reference in the 'Musical Legacy' section to Regina Spektor: "Well-known contemporary artists such as New York based Martha Wainwright, Spanish singer-songwriter Conchita Mendivil (who both recently reprised "Dis, Quand Reviendras-tu?",[6] and Regina Spektor (with "Après Moi"), and London-based singer-songwriter Ana Silvera[7] have reprised songs sung by Barbara.". This seems to imply that Spektor's "Après Moi" is a cover of a Barbara song, or at least a song that Barbara previously sang, but I cannot find any reference to this elsewhere. The writing credit to it on "Begin to Hope" is to Spektor herself, and as that was issued in 2006, nine years after Barbara's death (notwithstanding that Spektor wrote many of her songs long before they were released), it seems unlikely that Barabara would ever have sung it. JA 1961 (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody clarified why Regina Spektor's 'Après Moi' was included here (and I didn't believe it should have been, for the reasons I explained above in 2017) I've just deleted it. There was also a slight error with parentheses in the same sentence which I've corrected. JA 1961 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking clarification of reference to Regina Spektor's "Après Moi"
Talk:Meyers Konversations-Lexikon

message: The first edition of the DDR-Meyer doesn't fit into the sequence of the nine editions of  Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, and the bibliographic notes are not in line with the specification given above. What are "cards"?  Besides, an important work such as the DDR-Meyer deserves an article for its own! --Paul Drew 12:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are implying that after the divide of Germany the Westgerman Meyer is the only legal successor of the Meyers by Bibliographisches Institut? Do you have any hard facts to back your opinion up?--Hhielscher 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DDR-Meyer

message: "1953 verlegt die Aktiengesellschaft ihren Sitz nach Mannheim, die Stadt Leipzig klagt dagegen." <BR>
Where did they lodge their complaint?
In the bibliographies I know, the sequence of editions is leading, not the year of publication, e.g. Bibliotheca Lexicorum (Vienna, 2001). Paul Drew 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meyers Lexikon revisited 

message: I wonder why -connected with the Meyers Tag- there appears the map of Warsaw on eyery entry?? Gerhard51 08:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag Meyers

message: A helpful template provides a link to online articles. It can be copied from the corresponding German Wikipedia article:
* 
* 
-- Matthead  Discuß   12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template to link to online articles
Talk:Phase synchronization

message: This articles covers the specific case of phase synchronization (PS) occurring during frequency synchronization.  Since PS can also occur without the latter, a more general definition is required, addressing the statistical aspects of the phenomenon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebden (talk • contribs) 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: This page is very similar to Synchronization  page; perhaps it would be prudent to move for a merge?
This document is more similar to a stub than a comprehensive article; the "Synchronization" page would probably benefit from the external sources that this page provides. 
Minksk (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This article talks about something quite differnt from Synchronization (alternating current) and they ought not to be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal May 2017
Talk:Miliary tuberculosis

message: This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article categorization 

message: Please review this article for "C" level status.--Angelina55413 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can have tuberculosis on just about any part of your body. Alex.tan 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can become disseminated systemically (through the entire body), damaging nearly any organ.Donaldal 04:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Heart, muscles, pancreas and thyroid are rarely attacked by TB, but all others parts of body can be damaged. --Al-Bargit 19:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am researching an ancestor who died of tubercular peritonitus, which I understand is an abdominal condition.  How does the disease spread to this part of the body?  Was this a common illness at that time (late nineteenth century). Thanks.210.50.60.56 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miliary tuberculosis can be spread through the blood if the original infection in the lung reaches a pulmonary artery or the lymphatic system (see the article on miliary TB).  Once it's in the blood it can spread pretty much anywhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmugele (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that information.  210.50.56.58 21:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Or Mendelian Susceptibility to Mycobacterial Disease can anyone expand on this?Jpogi (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Familial disseminated atypical mycobacterial infection'''

message: Add: "and brain" to "Miliary TB may infect any number of organs, including the lungs, liver, and spleen" ?  For consideration and example: "[Thomas] Wolfe was eventually diagnosed with miliary tuberculosis of the brain."  ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add: "and brain" ? 

message: A somewhat humorous article in a morbid sort of way... https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-14.html
Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milary Tuberculosis due to intravenous drug abuse
Talk:J. Baird Callicott

message: Could someone informed and who has a wide variety of sources work on this article? Also, it would need to be in an encyclopedic format, as many recent edits seem to be more from proponents of this view, displaying Callicott's philosophy as a sort of fact, rather than trying to highlight, in easily accessible and non-esoteric terms, the philosophical arguments he makes. Smeggysmeg 07:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 
Talk:Mortal Kombat: Tournament Edition

message: When the CVG stub categories were being discussed, we wanted to keep the genres fairly non-specific. Since fighting games tend to have things like rounds and are somewhat based on matches also seen in martial arts sports events, we felt sports seemed most appropriate for them. 
However, since then an "action" genre has been added too, which might work better, or if you think there will be enough fighting game stubs to warrent their own stub category, feel free to propose it. --ADeveria 12:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub tag type