lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Specialization (pre)order

message: Should x ≤ y be read "x is a specialization of y" or "y is a specialization of x"?
Hartshorne says the former Algebraic geometry (Ex 3.17 p.93). However the motivational paragraph seems to claim the latter. Actually, the paragraph appears to be self-contradictory. If first claims that y is more specific, but then uses an analogy with genus and species and generic points which indicates that x is more specific. Can anyone sort this out? -- Fropuff (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specialization

message: It seems that some authors write x \le y to mean "x is a specialisation of y" while others use it to mean "y is a specialisation of x". Fine.
The current version of the "Definition and Motivation" section seems to put a huge emphasis on this trivial point. This makes it impossible to follow, because it's constantly weighing up the pros and cons of one convention versus the other, while at the same time trying to explain what they both mean. If someone's in the mood for editing, it would be a great help just to pick one and include a brief note somewhere - just once, preferably at the end - that some authors use the other convention.
Nathaniel Virgo (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overemphasis on the direction of the preorder
Talk:Minnesota Golden Gophers football under Henry L. Williams

message: The article lists the Gophers playing a "Twin Cities Central High School" in 1904 and 1905. I've never heard of that high school and I'm wondering if it could be a combination of Minneapolis Central and Saint Paul Central. This book supports that but not the reference  that is most cited in the article. It seems that the Gophers cut down on the number of high school teams it played and 1905 was the last year they played a high school team. I'm thinking that they played a combined Central High School team for the last two years that they played them. Could that be possible? Eóin (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin Cities High School
Talk:Marlborough Boys' College

message: The article is in category:Boarding schools in New Zealand - is MBC a boarding school? Crummy (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: X-Static FM doesn't have any independent notability, and could easily be incorporated into this article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from X-Static FM
Talk:Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act of 1996

message: I am working on further of theis article. rkmlai (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last edit made by Rkmlai on this article was on 23 December 2007. --Bejnar (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Further work
Talk:Homogamy

message: Added biological definition of homogamy.  This could use linking and support from articles on dichogamy and hermaphrodism. --Ochotona (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This I find confusing; the use in biology seems quite unconnected to that in sociology.  Perhaps it's a *small* set of meanings, but I'd prefer an ambiguity page for the word itself, or perhaps just a link to the wiktionary?  The only departure from the definitional here is a remark about one proposal (and is it still current? it's the first I'd ever heard...) to deliberately subvert traditional word use, and having little directly to do with either established meaning. 173.33.200.177 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The two sections of this article seem to  me to be hardly related at all, and I'd favour the proposal to split. The biological meaning could be greatly expanded, but it would seem silly to have a lot of discussion and diagrams of the biology when the quite distinct sociology term is on the same page. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reason for the split is obvious, then I suggest that you go ahead and make the split. This discussion has been going on, very slowly, for 4 years now. I personally think that the split articles would be too small to be viable. If you agree with me on that, then the correct tag would be expand and not split. Op47 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I think that you should look more closely at what you have deleted and deal with it appropriately before destroying what others have built. You should not assume that other people have limitless time for restoring that material. This falls under the general heading of reaching consensus in wikipedia. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to split the article into two
Talk:Zoo blot

message: Maybe mention that, before genetic sequencing, this was the major molecular way to determine phylogenetic relationships? If that's true, of course. I just seem to recall that this is how they came up with the "chimps and humans differ by X percent" and "here's the real cladogram of birds" results, before we were sequencing whole organisms directly. Jdrum00 (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical importance
Talk:Vault RNA

message: Hi Nmaganti,
Thank you for your addition to this page. Please take into consideration the above comments, especially linking to other Wikipedia pages. Also, you use both vRNA and vtRNA. Try to keep this consistent. 
Overall it looks good! Polish it a bit and I think you will have an excellent page.
Elizabeth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemStudent24601 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: GSI Comments

message: Good work! A couple of more suggestions here. 
1. Please fix the reference format issues as suggested by the first reviewer. Besides the slides I posted on CTools site, you can also watch the videos on the following two pages.    
2. It's great that you found a good video to use. But the syntax you used can be modified and you should add some captions to it too. Here is an example to modify it    You can find more syntax to change the location and size of the video on Help:picture tutorial. 
3. Although there is not much content in the original article Vault RNA. But you should still consider incorporating what's there, especially the references, into your own writing. Just to respect others' work. Others will respect your work too.
4. When you move your article to the formal page, there is no need to use Introduction as the heading for the first section since it can be used as the lead section. 
Hope it helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

message: No idea why the fragrep2 section is in there. It's poorly written and doesn't add any value.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.51.156 (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  fragrep2
Talk:U7 small nuclear RNA

message: there are a ton of citations to Schumperli papers... Richard☺Decal (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Metric or imperial? The further reading list was produced automatically from a pubmed search for U7[ti]. I suspect all the D. Schümperli references are because they have done a lot of work in the area.--Paul (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Schumperli papers
Talk:U6 spliceosomal RNA

message: This is the only spliceosomal RNA that is transcribed by RNA polymerase III. I can't edit this site well, but it would be nice if someone mentioned that here. Here is a link to a journal article that references this point in the abstract:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=9CE89B826B695A931C66482F0B0AF66D.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=50421  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.142.237.113 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Soil water (retention)

message: wikipedia is infamous at times for this: making the most important detail of a topic hidden or not even findable by link.
ie, for water retention: how much? (no figures or wiki links were stated).  Also retention v. heating is mentioned: but the primary detail of whether temperature/heat is more or less: not stated.
ie, for latitude v. longitude: which line measures e-w, which measures n-s ((was) present but hidden)?
i could go on and on.  if you have 0 details about your topic please do not use add a new topic paragraph at all.
one reason for this is: we all know soil has moisture - we read about it to be led to more (factual) details in a structured manner
and always: we knew soil had water retention to FIND this article, therefore we would not locate and read the article to simply obtain verbage and to be told soil does retain water: because we would have to have know that before finding the article, and therefore no longer could be looking for that fact
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: please do not introduce a topic without stating the most important detail

message: — Assignment last updated by Bivolo (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023
Talk:Soil cement

message: While it is a commercial product name, I'm not sure what else it would be classified as and/or called. An editor has deleted the section outright. Perhaps someone could clarify if Rhinosnot belongs here and if not, what it would be called and how it should be classified. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lexlex. I am the editor who deleted the Rhinosnot section and left the question about your reversion of my edit on your talk page. Since then I have continued to search for documentation that any binding agent other than cement mixed with soil is called soil cement. I did find one source which stated that additives like pozzolana could be added in addition to cement. There is a long history with numerous sources discussing soil cement as a cement product. I have found no other use of the term soil cement with alternate binders. Rhino snot is formally known as Envirotac II and is an acrylic copolymer used as a soil stabilizer (like soil cement) and for dust control but if no one can find a reliable source that expand the dictionary given definition of soil cement being expanded to binders other than cement than it should not be included here. It could be discussed in soil stabilization, dust control, and/or dust abatement. Jim Derby (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's the case it seems like the any reference to RhinoSnot should be moved to soil stabilization and does not belong here at all, perhaps? Lexlex (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhinosnot
Talk:Soil organic matter

message: The table in the section decomposition process lists NH4- as an end product of decompostion. There is no such thing as NH4-, it should be NH4+. --Mikeschaerer (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NH4- does not exist its NH4+ (Ammonium) 

message: Hello guys, the corresponding article in German would be https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organische_Bodensubstanz. Currently it is linking to DOM (dissolved organic matter)Guybrushh (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong link
Talk:Johannes Fabricius

message: "...someone who claimed to have seen lunar inhabitants through his telescope, though that particular fact is merely part of Verne's fiction"
This is a bit of a mess, sorry!
By definition a fact is something known or proved to be true - it can not be a fiction. However, it is not clear what the word 'fact' is referring to here: the claim itself or what was being claimed? If Fabricus made a claim (no matter how ridiculous) then it is true, a fact, that a claim was made whatever the veracity of the claim itself. If he did not make a claim then writing that he did is an invention by Verne. If the use of 'fact' is referring to lunar inhabitants then the words 'particular fact' should be replaced by a word such as 'episode'.
Chrysippo (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact or Fiction

message: Johannes Fabricius is said to have died in 1615, 1616 and 1617.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The monument seems to refer to David Fabricius.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on Osteel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The monument actually refers to David and Johann. See the photograph in the article on David in the German Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death
Talk:SraB RNA

message: Just a layman's perspective, but this article could stand to say something about the significance of this RNA, and perhaps why it's called "SraB"? Googling for it mostly just takes me back to Wikipedia. —Mu Mind (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I've added a sentence about the naming and a new reference. Alexbateman (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs context for laymen
Talk:John Carisi

message: This website lists Carisi's year of death as 1990.  I notice that the French language article lists it as 1992. Does someone have a reference that can resolve this disparity? --Araucaria (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Anandpur (1700)

message: See this discussion on the Military History talk page. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The Umpteen Battles of Anandpur
Talk:Strict liability (criminal)

message: From the "United States" section, we see:
:the United States makes only the most minor crimes or infractions subject to strict liability
but shortly afterwards:
:Another area where strict liability tends to show up is in drunk driving laws
and indeed shortly after that:
:In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense.
I don't think many people would call drunk driving or statutory rape amongst "the most minor crimes or infractions". Loganberry (Talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy? 

message: Soldier found gun and handed it into police. Guilty. 1 year suspended 1 year ref  - Kittybrewster  ☎ 23:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Clarke. 2010 in UK 

message: I have removed the following passage, which I think is complete nonsense.  However I'm not a lawyer so I'll move it here to see if anyone wants to defend it.
:Another common strict liability felony is manslaughter, or accidental murder.  Although there is no guilty mind in manslaughter (the very thing that separates it from murder), the fact that the negligent actions resulted in someone's death supersede any need for mens rea.
First of all, referring to manslaughter as "accidental murder" appears to be wrong.  Manslaughter, as I understand it, is a category of criminal homicide that is not murder.
More seriously, manslaughter is not a pure accident.  As I understand it, in most common-law jurisdictions, a purely accidental killing (say, a legal act performed with ordinary care that through misfortune results in the death of another) is no crime at all.  Manslaughter is not a strict-liability offense, but rather one where the mens rea is something other than malice aforethought.
I invite comment from more expert editors. --Trovatore (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manslaughter 

message: Is it useful to state (as is currently the case) the gender of people involved in this case? Is it legally relevant? Apokrif (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't we mention them? We state the gender of parties in many other cases where it's not legally relevant either. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genders in the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" section
Talk:Kingdom of Cusco

message: The newly added sections are readable and have improved the article greatly but this article only has 3 web base sources. For the purpose of the class assignment, out of 5 sources, academic sources were needed as well. (Ecoconscious (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The section "A Brief Overview" states that "[t]he land which Pachacuti conquered was about the size of the Thirteen Colonies at the outbreak of the American Revolution of 1776, and consisted of nearly the entire territory of the Andes mountain range." This describes the size of the Inca Empire at its height. Pachacuti's conquests are miniscule in comparison.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.69.153 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect information
Talk:Edward Eager

message: Copyvio fixed by simply removing the offending quote of the review, which had been there since 2006... hmm. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio fixed

message: From July 2009 through February 2010, I added many citations and source materials, some of them secondary, some original so I removed cleanup designation. Luxmissus 14 February 2010  —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup designation removed

message: "Half Magic was the #1 seller in America."24.199.155.249 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Three years later we have improved it cosmetically, from "#1" to "No. 1" semiautomatically and now, by my hand, to "number one". --P64 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly does this mean?

message: It will be valuable here(*) to read the 1954 FSF review for more information. 
Presumably what we now quote does "compare the novel to Nesbit" as we say, meaning Eager to Nesbit and Half Magic to her children's fantasy novels. Better we should link at least one of them. 
What if anything does Boucher say anything about "the british compliments" (sic), the main point of one anonymous revision (diff) that I just reverted in that respect.
What we now quote is appropriate to the body of this article, moreso than to the mini-section about the novel under review, and barely adequate to amplify what we say at Edith Nesbit about her legacy. Probably the review includes something specific to Half Magic and something more than adequate for use at Nesbit.
P.S. Boucher#Fiction writing and editing was the founding editor of FSF.
--P64 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Boucher's review
Talk:Jesper Olsen (runner)/Archive 1

message: How did he get from Vladivostok to Tokyo and Shannon to London? There had to be a boat or plane in there. --AW (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He flew from Vladivostok to Japanese west coast. He ran from Shannon to London, except the boat Dublin-Holyhead. One can not walk on water, so an exception was needed. He also needed to take a taxi along a long bridge over a river in the US since running was illegal and there were cameras. --217.209.46.40 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: He ran everywhere except where it was impossible. --198.208.243.251 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes but not legal. The bridge was long and he would been arrested if trying. --BIL (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Coming of Age (2008 TV series)

message: http://www.amck.tv/artists2.php?aid=767
Best place here? well, hope you get on with it, shes quite hot. 81.129.59.109 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably better placed on the actor profile for Hannah Job MatthewGall2005 (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details on Hannah for her page/profile 

message: The first paragraph on its "popularity" has no references whatsoever. Seems like an advert for the programme and very biased. Although the negative criticism isn't omitted, so it isn't completely non-npov, there still needs to be citations for its claims of popularity and viewing figures. Without any of this, it will need to be deleted.
Also, the following statement: "It should, however, be noted that these websites are not the work of professional television reviewers." ought to be removed as TV Scoop contains reviews from TV critics and the British Comedy Guide collects professional reviews. I will add a few more to justify its removal. It also makes it sound as if the negative reviews are misleading yet there isn't a single positive review to be found anywhere. Feudonym (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citations 

message: Should be just that, not the "hooks" you get in listings magazines. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on creating some more detailed summaries on an area of my talk page.... Bear with me MatthewGall2005 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode summaries

message: I've been doing some searching and as yet am unable to find information pertaining to the exterior of Wooton College. There seems to be information relating to it being either the Cassio campus of West Herts College in Watford or (as I was previously lead to believe) the Abingdon campus of Abingdon and Witney College. Anyone out there able to source it? Otherwise it's going to have to be removed. MatthewGall2005 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, I'm also hearing that it's filmed at Elstree Studios and BBC Television Centre, but I can't find any reputable sources MatthewGall2005 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exterior filming location 
Talk:Corners (TV series)

message: There were four corners, after which the programme was named.  The Experiment Corner, the Mystery Corner, the Joke Corner (after which Jo Corner was named) and another one I can't remember.  Can anyone here jog my memory?  Or find any information about this programme anywhere on the web other than here? -- Smjg (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a picture of Jo the puppet; I've completely forgotten what he (she?) looked like. Think he had an annoying voice. I sent a joke in once and got a glittery Corners postcard back saying "Jo liked your joke", but I doubt they used it. 86.130.40.127 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

message: This page is supposed to refer to the 1980s children's series (which was certainly not a mystery or a drama), but a lot of the info seems to relate something entirely different from the 1990s, which I am not even sure exists. Dunarc (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something very wrong here
Talk:Crusades (TV series)

message: Crusades is a 1995 historical documentary series presented by Terry Jones. It looked at The Crusades and used elements of black comedy. Prominent figures are depicted by actors wearing masks and costumes making to appear as living images in the style of their cultures. Emperor Alexios I, for example, appears as a Byzantine mosaic, while European and Muslim figures are brought to life by actors appearing in the style of medieval and near eastern miniatures. At times, production is deliberately anachronistic, such as showing the use of 1930s style newsreels by the Church to drum up mass support for the Crusades. 2601:602:CD82:5AD0:A8FE:6EC2:94F6:E709 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  .
Talk:Acting presidency of Suharto

message: Wow - thanks [User:Jakman]]. So much work there. This is a great way to start an article. Just two edits and we have 10 printed pages of material. --Merbabu (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent new article
Talk:Green company

message: According to the Wikipedia article Suncor is based in Canada, not USA. Biscuittin (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Is it really necessary to have a page where companies from different industries get to show off their specific examples of green initiatives? 67.193.173.202 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: Shouldn't there be a subcategory of green companies?  Bruxism (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category? 

message: — Assignment last updated by HighQualityWater (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science 2023