lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hebrew languages

message: ... from Hebrews speakers about an apparent discrepancy between Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia, at Talk:Natalie Portman#First Name. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions needed ... 

message: Just created a barnstar for this WikiProject.
Feel free to use it for any Hebrew, Torah/Bible, Judaism or Israel-related topic.
—Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new barnstar 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Natalie Portman § "Neta-Lee Hershlag".  Discussion related to her Hebrew birth name. Sundayclose (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:Natalie Portman#"Neta-Lee Hershlag"|Talk:Natalie Portman §&nbsp;"Neta-Lee Hershlag"]]

message: I have recently added what appears to be the origin of this English idiom from the Bava Kamma. Can someone please proofread the way that I have included the Hebrew verb? 2601:642:4600:3F80:81AD:8522:7A4F:946D (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofreading: [[Turn in one's grave]]
Talk:Domotics

message: Domotics = Domus + Informatics?  Are you sure it's not Domestic + Robotics?  --Ardonik 08:30, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
::Domestic+robotics are domestic robots. When the robots are microbots, appear [domobot]]s.Mac 08:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Both domotics.com  and answers.com  define it as domus + informatics. --Mumblingmynah 08:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Domotics

message: Merge discussion stalled in 2007. The Home automation article already uses Domotics as an alternative name. Was considering a simple redirect, but additional information from this article now included there. See Consensus reached at Talk:Home automation/Archive 1#Domotics merger in 2007 Haruth (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge was reversed without explanation. --Kvng (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Please discuss this at Talk:Home automation/Archive 1#Domotics merger. --Kvng (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged reasoning.  

message: Searching Google for Domotics brings up the website of what appears to be a British corporation, hence this is commercial advertising as the term is otherwise little attested.— Robert Greer (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{db|Domotics appears to be the name of a British corporation.}}</nowiki>
Talk:Slavocracy

message: I meant to quickly return to the entry beyond the first (and only) sentence of the first paragrpah that I have written, but I got sidetracked and simply forgot to. My apologies for that. Undoubtedly more to write on the entry beyond -this- latest revision by yours truly, but I am hopeful this revision/addition, continuing what has been added by someone else [i.e. "A number of early European colonies in the New World were largely plantocracies"] with the lines that follow therein, amounts to a good start for now. Thanks for your patience, and I would value any constructive opinion on the subject. Thanks again. El_CEL_CEl_C
Although Mr. Fischer's students do not believe that "Slavocracy" is a real word, it really is.
    * Please note: Those of lesser intelligence doubt the existence of the term "Slavocracy." However, they are wrong.
Mr. Fischer, the liberal pacifistic Quaker, has no bearing on any discussion regarding history nor sobriety.
This seems to me to be entirely unsuited to an encyclopedical article. What is the rationale behind this addition? Tagged as noncompliant for now. Stargelman 14:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slipped my mind, sorry
Talk:Basil of Ostrog

message: Second paragraph of the text is copyvio of http://www.njegos.org/orthodoxy/hagiog.htm . If someone considers it important, please don't remove it, I am quite certain that I could obtain a permission. Nikola 10:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Balfour Declaration of 1926

message: The article currently quotes the Declaration as saying "autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs". That wording has 312 hits here. However, "aspect of their domestic or internal affairs" gets 45 hits here - including a UK Parliament research paper, Fransman's British Nationality Law and The New Cambridge Modern History, all of which I suggest would normally be considered as reliable sources. The definitive source appears to be "Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference of 1926 (Cmd 2768) at page 14, cited in Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales, 4th ed, 1985, vol 7 p4." Does anyone have access to either of these sources? Would it be worth the article recording these variants, and stating which one is correct and which one is not? Alekksandr (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "aspect of their domestic or internal/external affairs?"

message: In the declaration, the country is called GB, and there is no single mention of the UK. 
Why than the article uses the name "United Kingdom"? 2A0D:6FC7:212:3375:678:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK or GB
Talk:Psilocybe cyanescens

message: Shouldn't there be a section on the effects of eating this mushroom, or drinking a tea made from it? Not a how too manual of course. I have a bit of knowledge of this, but it is original research so I  can't really use it here, hehe. HighInBC 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of the effects is given in the article on psilocybin. There's no need to repeat this information in each and every article about a psilocybin-containing mushroom. Peter G Werner 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call HighInBC 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: Isn't the proper genus for these Panaeolus? Thatfunkymunki 04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by a long shot - you're confusing Panaeolus cyanescens (aka Copelandia cyanescens) with Psilocybe cyanescens. Both are psilocybin mushrooms, but are completely different species in completely different genera. Panaeolus cyanescens is a subtropical species that grows on dung, while Psilocybe cyanescens is a temperate species that grows on woodchips. Hope this helps. Peter G Werner 06:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect genus? 

message: I added a tag because article needs inline citations for consistency... I'll do it if noone gets there first Sasata (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference cleanup

message: It now has an official paper out on it. http://www.czechmycology.org/_cmo/CM64207.pdf
The name was changed to Psilocybe allenii.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.221.168 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psilocybe cyanofriscosa 

message: I don't know if it's worth working into the article, but there are many many reports of these species mushrooms causing paralysis, especially in high doses (in excess of 4g dried). If you search the name of this species of mushrooms and "paralysis" you will find all sorts of reports that this species of "magic mushrooms" can cause a temporary paralysis which can be very dangerous and sign of possible toxicity in adults. A couple other "wood loving" magic mushroom species are said to cause similar effects.  131.191.57.0 (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety: These Mushrooms Can Cause Temporary but Very Real Paralysis
Category talk:Anticholinergics

message: We need to distinguish antagonists from agonists.  I made Category:Nicotinic agonists but didn't list it under here because I thought "anticholinergics" was maybe only antagonists.  Now I find that a lot of the things listed under antagonists are actually agonists.  Can I get some help in straightening this out from whoever started this category? --Chinasaur 11:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of the nicotinic agonists category as both categories had the same content.  In retrospect, after doing a lot more reading here, i shouldn't have done that, as there is a difference between agonists and antagonists.  i don't know what that difference is, and seeing that both categories had all the same entries, i mistakenly thought that it was a mistake.  Apologies.  how can we get this straightened out?  --Heah 20:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Oldham

message: Oldham remains within the County Palatine of Lancaster. 
To quote part of the wording of the Lancashire article, "While the administrative boundaries changed in the 1970s, the county palatine boundaries remain the same as the historic boundaries. As a result, the High Sheriffs for Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside are appointed "within the Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster".*High Sheriffs, The Times, 21 March 1985
Referring to this in the lead might calm the spates of reversions between 'Greater Manchester; and 'Lancashire'. Urselius (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Palatine 

message: Sitush mentioned some concerns with this article's FA status above, and I share those concerns. It seems like unsourced sentences (and even a paragraph in the Economy section) have been added by editors since this FA's promotion, which need to be checked for notability, sourced, and integrated properly into the article. Is anyone willing to undertake this? If not, it may be submitted to WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR notice

message: For info, the article reached FA status on 18 November 2007  with this version. PamD 16:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status 

message: I've added the population, area and density for BUASD and Local Authority, from 2011 census, to the lead. I don't know where the poplaton and area figures in the infobox came from, so have left them alone for now. PamD 16:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics update 

message: I've done a bit of work on the sport section - someone who knows about local cricket etc might be able to improve. PamD 18:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport
Talk:Maniple (military unit)

message: A diagram of the unit will probably explain it a thousand times better than words would. --ToyotaPanasonic 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram 

message: I'm not sure it's at all clear why the maniple disappeared.  If it is clearly as a result of the Marian reforms need sources citing that; sources I am familiar with state it is unclear when and why the maniple was abandoned.  Statement that "Romans provided only legionaries (sword and shield)" is also confusing.  By Romans, is the article referring to the city of Rome or more broadly to Roman citizens regardless of era?  As written, this is clearly not the case, as Roman citizens in the legions certainly were not so uniformly armed even in an individual era.  For example, in the late Empire there are examples of cohorts fighting with hasta in shield wall formation, such as the Battle of Strasbourg.
Recommend the article be thoroughly revised, possibly with comments on difficulty of reading into ancient sources for reliable data.  As it is, the article presents a debatable and murky issue rather neatly... Macboots 23:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of Maniple
Talk:McCarthy 91 function

message: I just removed the C iterative example. As pointed out in the comments below, it was quite pointless and potentially confusing; it was essentially a translation of the tail-recursive code into a for-loop. Also the description for it was incorrect, naming it a "tail-recursive" implementation (but "non-functional", whatever that means?) although there was no recursion whatsoever. Vegan Velociraptor (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

message: int mccarthy(int n)
{
    for (int c = 1; c != 0; ) 
    {
        if (n > 100) 
        {
            n = n - 10;
            c--;
        }
        else 
        {
            n = n + 11;
            c++;
        }
    }
    return n;
}
isn't that Java, not C++? 71.141.127.117 06:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it say C++, isn't that Java?
Talk:Stereoscopy

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Passiflora caerulea STEREO (R-L) 2019-06-27.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 1, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-11-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: Might it be worth mentioning somewhere that Dr Brian May, the guitarist of Queen, is a collector of stereoscopic images and equipment. He has a website dedicated solely to stereoscopy: https://www.londonstereo.com/ 81.131.173.194 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity fan 

message: There seems to be little here about the history of these images (e.g. when stereo photography was first practiced, when its popularity peaked). Is there some other article that would have more of that? If so, it probably should be prominently linked from this one. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The first stereoscopic device, invented by Charles Wheatstone in 1838, used drawings; the type developed in 1849 by David Brewster could use paired daguerreotypes, and was popular until the 1930s.    The earliest compact stereoscopic camera that I found:  Vérascope, was introduced in 1893 by Jules Richard. --136.56.52.157 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

text: From the book Instruments and the Imagination: "" The text goes on to describe that the invention caused a sensation at London's Great Exhibition of 1851, whereupon a craze ensued, as evidenced by over-the-top rave reviews ("a divine gift").  --Lambiam 06:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:Orlando Cabrera

message: I changed the description of Cabrera as one of the best shortstops in baseball. I name Jeter, Nomar, Tejada as certainly better than he is. Carlos Guillen has been as solid as Cabrera, and is playing much better in 2004. Michael Young is at least as good as Cabrera. Omar Vizquel has consistently been a very good SS, Angel Berroa won Rookie of the Year, and Edgar Renteria's statistics are better as well. That means Cabrera is at best the 10th best SS in baseball, which hardly qualifies him as "one of the best". - NYYW
im the best shortstop not him
:that lines back, so im removing it again. thats a load of bull. cabreras good, but hes not one of the best. i wouldnt say berroas better than him (nobody even knows wut berroas doing nowadays), and nomar hasnt been a shortstop for 3 years. but cabrera barely cuts the top 10 regardless, maybe top 15. though top 15 isnt good enough to be considered one of the best. reyes, rollins, han-ram, tejada, jeter, guillen, young, renteria, peralta, and quite a few others are just a couple names i would like to have instead of cabrera.
Added in that Sox fans still give him standing ovations whenever he walks up to the plate. Peach freak 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 
Talk:Solar variation

message: The chart needs updating - as it ends in 2006 - missing the latest solar cycle.
131.111.23.90 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart looks rather out of date 

message: Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo:
:Since it is the Sun's energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged.  Ssscienccce (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself is rife with such conflicts. I don't expect an easy resolution. Batvette (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical perspective 

message: The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2."  Yet the Wikipedia article on the solar constant gives the value of 1361 W/m2.  Can anyone explain the discrepancy?  Thanks. Mhklein (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lower estimate is more recent. Don't know if it is controversial. See Solar irradiation. Lfstevens (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the order of these around slightly, to put the solar constant before the variation in solar constant, but didn't change the actual number without a canonical reference.  Different sources do use slightly different totals.  Several links were redirects to "solar irradiance", so I consolidated these to just one place. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar constant 

message: This section is a bit rubbish. Firstly, it "predicts" the 2010 peak, and no-one (including me!) has bothered update it for whatever happened. Secondly, its almost all about "predicting" climate (has it been copied in from elsewhere) not predicting the cycles, so it belongs under the climate heading William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictions based on patterns
Talk:Ajit Jogi

message: Which IIT is Ajit Jogi associated with? The link IIT has to be replaced by a link to the specific IIT or to the article about all (Indian) IITs at IITs. -- Paddu 14:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sir,I introduce to myself I'm Sarad Chandra from Vill-Tikthi,Block-Marwahi,Dist-Bilaspur(C.G.).Sir,i've not much money to study there but i want study so i talked with many persons and they suggested me that u should try to Mr.Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi who's the MLA of our block.so plz sir i heartily requests to u that helm me as your son plz sis plz!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.139.255 (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This request belongs to get loan.Hi,Sir this is Sarad Chandra sir this year i have passed out the B.com exam and have also taken admission in Hyderabad Calrton Business School but sir i paid them only Rs 10000/ not more and the total fee is Rs360000.
Talk:Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering

message: Which IIT is mentioned here? The link IIT has to be replaced by a link to the specific IIT or to IITs. -- Paddu 14:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The GA Review has been archived and can be accessed here. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all claims in the article have citations. this is great work but other than one or two , all of them are from the college's website.I understand that is the only way to get certain information but claims of the college website like("first to","placement %","placement companies" need not be entirely true.regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliterammer (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Department of Automobile engineering 
National level symposium EA32417 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traxion