lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Acrolect

message: With professional jargon such as "acrolect" some of the interest for the ordinary reader is in knowing who coined this phrase, when, and in what context? Wetman 03:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked it up; I did not know that it was Derek Bickerton who coined the word.  I was pleased to learn that we already had a stub article about him.  Smerdis of Tlön 04:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Good! an improvement. "Basilect" is a curious and unlucky barbarism that makes an educated person think naturally of "the King's English"—basileus is not what its misguided coiner had in mind.  A counterfeit coining, I'm sorry to relate. The following text displays failure of nerve: "An acrolect is a register of a spoken language that is considered formal and high style." Is considered?  Considered by whom, inquiring minds wish to know? What of those who speak in paragraphs and dream in "acrolect": are we acrofolk? --Wetman 07:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have said that it brings to mind the word basis - the bottom of something, as opposed to akros - the top of something. Even the average educated person is not hugely likely to spring to the word basileus before the word basis. thefamouseccles 03:05, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

text: This is true for TV broadcasts in Chinese languages. For example, Cantonese TV broadcasts in a register distinct from both Cantonese and Standard Written Chinese, but relies on both. However, reputable newspapers in Hong Kong are always written in Standard Written Chinese. --142.151.135.10 02:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also Katharevousa, the literary invented modern form of Greek. See Modern Greek and Katharevousa --Wetman 16:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: I've removed all text that doesn't go in accordance with the notion that this is a term purely used for creole language.  All sources I've ever seen go in accordance with this notion so those wishing to add information that extends this notion should source it.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information removal
Talk:Basilect

message: With professional jargon such as "basilect" some of the interest for the ordinary reader is in knowing who coined this phrase, when, and in what context? Wetman 03:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: I've removed all text that doesn't go in accordance with the notion that this is a term purely used for creole language.  All sources I've ever seen go in accordance with this notion so those wishing to add information that extends this notion should source it. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information removal
Talk:Air Force One/Archive 1

message: Does anyone out there have any information about the so-called "Doomsday Plane", which was apart of the Air Force One fleet during the Cold War. I would add information about it, but unfortantely I don't have any hard facts. --Mrbrown 07:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doomsday Plane 

message: So what's a "SAM designation"? It's never explained or linked that I can see. It just pops up in the History section. I'm having a hard time searching for it due to search engine confusion with surface-to-air missiles. -- Cyrius|✎
: 'Special Air Mission' according to this page  Jerry 22:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "SAM designation"? 

message: The article has a sentence that begins 'From its inception' but doesn't say when it was incepted (or indeed why or whether there was any controversy surrounding it). The earliest reference is to 1962, but someone on the FAC page has suggested the Eisenhower had a plane. Could someone elucidate? Jongarrettuk 21:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: When did Air Force One start?
Talk:Ravenswood School for Girls

message: Plural of alumna, former student. Are you saying that boys attend the school?
And it must be lowercase. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Section headings. -- Usgnus 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumnae 

message: This article is one of a  number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes
Talk:Robert Fuchs (composer)

message: Hrm. I have keys and etc. for the other violin sonatas (well, they're also now available on two Thorofon CDs as of the last month, but got the information out of Cobbett's Cyclopedia - sonata #2 op 33 in D, sonata #3 op 68 in d, 4 in E op 77, 5 in A op 95 ) and I'm pretty sure that Fuchs didn't teach Strauss. (I wrote that he did on a webpage myself once, but was mistaken...)  Wish someone would record the operas and the mass (there may be a few- someone sent me a midi of a Kyrie from one of them, once, which was, I think, in d; the mass op 108 I see reference to is in G maj) but the former would probably take a deal of money.
There's also a double bass sonata op 97 and three pieces for that combination op 96, a harp solo work op 85, and some assorted piano and 2-piano(?) works (also the two piano quartets, op 15 in g and op 75 in b) and the piano trios op 22 in C and op 72 in Bb.  Have heard the first mvt of op 72, which is very fine I think...)
Schissel 03:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: At http://www.onb.ac.at (the Austrian national library) under an author search for Fuchs, Robert- fairly sure this is the same Robert Fuchs, the others having different jobs and not known to be composers on the side...
:5. [Streich-] Quartett. [Partitur.] ("Amont, 2.9.1925") 
:   	17 Bl. 
: 	Kf. H. Böck 1953 
:  	Autogr. 
??? Assuredly not a new discovery, but not included in the Minguet edition, or in Grove, or... how odd! Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four or five string quartets? 

message: This statement "The reason his compositions did not become better known was largely that he did little to promote them" is way too decisive.  Fuchs may not have don much to promote his works, but, and mentioned later in the article, others promoted them for him.  Besides, no composer promotes his/her works after his/her death, yet many composers' works do succeed post mortem, and Fuchs's have not.  So this is most probably NOT the reason. 
I believe that, in spite of Brahms's compliments and others' promotions, the works may not have appealed very strongly to audiences.  That's all. 93.172.30.111 (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE reason his compositions did not become better known?
Talk:Force carrier

message: I'd say that this article should be merged with Gauge boson, but, actually, it might be interesting to include cases of force carriers that are not gauge bosons (e.g. the mesons in some effective field theories of hadrons).  —Matt McIrvin 03:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone should say, in this page and the Gauge boson page, that force carrier particles are the same thing as gauge bosons, if this is correct.
scienceman 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauge Bosons 

message: Intermediate particle links here, but no explanation is given for that terminology.  What about it is "intermediate"?  Are all force carriers Intermediate bosons?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.169.219 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermediate Particle 

message: intended to complain about the poor state of the article, but looking at “At sufficiently large energies, ” concluded that it is futile. Nothing good can come from a talk-page discussion where watchers tolerate (or make) such edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are small energies large? 

message: I propose merging Static forces and virtual-particle exchange here. Both articles discuss forces arising from the exchange of particles. The 'static' in the title of the source article seems largely irrelevant. The source article has too many equations to be easily readable, and a lot of it is unreferenced.
There is also a large overlap between these articles and Virtual particle, but in my opinion that article has a different enough viewpoint, so that a merging with it is not useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these articles overlap and I don't see a clear value for both.  "Static forces..." is much stronger but I agree with your implicit choice of "Force carrier" as the merged title. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I won't lie, I think the two share a fair overlap but not necessarily to the point that I'd agree a merger. Varsect (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Varsect What specific content do you think belongs in "Static forces and virtual particle exchange" but not in "force carrier" and vice versa? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Julia Livia

message: Does anyone have any reliable source that cites her birthdate. Can’t seem to find one.  PrinceofFrancia (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Neutrality 3

message: Your vandalism of my userpage is not appreciated. I see you have a history of such actions. I advise you to stop this immediately, lest you find yourself blocked. Regards -- Neutrality (hopefully!) 21:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)"
So he sees any comment he doesn't like as "vandalism" and threatens an immediate ban. I think we need to get up a petition re concern about his behaviour and try to have him de-selected as an Administrator. I feel he will drive new users away for example if he treats them this way. See my page for more tedious details at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser
I also don't like the conflict of interest of Jwrosenzweig and Raul654. In the Arbitration on Rex071404 They haven't finished their (mighty) judgement, yet they've already taken action against Rex071404 and not against Neutrality and -when they haven't finished judging the case- gone off and voted for Neutrality to be an Administrator. They should withdraw from either the voting or the Arbitration case, they can't do both. Seeems like a conflict of interest to me:
"26. Support -- Neutrality's obviously deserving and dedicated. ... 
...I trust Neutrality to keep this in mind, and have great faith in N's ability to be a trustworthy admin. Jwrosenzweig </wiki/User:Jwrosenzweig> 20:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I moved these from the project page since the nomination is finished. That page should be left "as-is" for the historical record -- Cecropia | explains it all ®
----
#WikiUser 20:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiUser "Vote" and Remarks 

message: I have only just completed my 48 hours sentence imposed on me by this candidate.
While I now know that I should not contribute in the area of my expertise, it gave a Newbie to WikiPedia a sour introduction to the process.  I was ambushed with accusation and no detail on claims of 'self promotion' and 'Link Spamming'.  This in response for attempting to fill the void on that topic.
I respect the establishment of the wikipedia process.  But I beg for it's own legacy that wikipedia treat volunteers with due respect and understanding. weide 03:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of a Newbie
Talk:Michael Ballam

message: I removed this: "Latter-day Saints who have been to the temple will recognize him as one of the actors who plays Lucifer." I'm assuming it's talking about the endowment video, but I've not been endowed, so I don't know. I'm not so confident it's relevant or appropriate here. Cookiecaper 00:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the Lucifer reference back in, this time in more direct language so those who have not been endowed don't have to guess at the meaning. It contributes hugely to his notability in LDS circles, and I think it belongs in the article. Pterodactyler 16:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: "Ballam is widely recognized among Latter-day Saints because of an appearance in a video shown in LDS temples." A10brown (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: plays Lucifer

message: This article sounds like Michael Ballam himself wrote it! (Those who know or have met him, will know what I'm talking about. :) ) In other words, it does not read like a Wikipedia article... it sounds more like someone is trying to sell Michael Ballam to us. - 97.117.57.136 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to his personal page listed in the external links, you'll see that his bio is almost exactly the same... just longer. It's no surprise given how much he loves to talk about himself. Also, the thing about his lectures being highly popular is... questionable to say the least. I took Creative Arts 1330 at USU with him a few years ago and... well... let's just say that I was grateful when I got swine flu so that I didn't have to go to his class. I know I'm not the only former student to feel that way. 67.186.192.21 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? Reads like promo material 
Talk:The Buffalo Skinners

message: We need a disambiguation page and a new entry for "The Buffalo Skinners"  Not sure of its origins, but it appeared in early 20th century cowboy song collections and was recorded here and there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.80.100 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also a traditional Ameriacan cowboy song
Talk:University of New Zealand

message: User:Close2franco bizzarely moved the UNZ page to Registration form. This is just to say its been rv'd. Bobboy 04:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Oxycodone

message: Oral bioavailability of oxycodone is 50-59% mean; 30-87% range
Note that the 87% figure was from a single 6 person study funded by the drug company.  Several independent studies have verified that the bioavailability is closer to 59%. I am Lorne, from Blue Light.  Somewhere on that site are numerous references proving oxycodone BA% both oral and intranasal, is at or just over 50%. 87% is nonsense.  Editing is difficult from my phone, someone please edit and fix this 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00228-012-1267-9. 
Here is a single reference for a 59% figure, though it is in the elderly, there are others.
Please, we need to really fix this, and put the intranasal mean 48% figure. Come on, our info needs to be thoughoufh and correct 
Thank You 2600:1005:B05C:57D1:0:53:4136:3201 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral bioavailability
Talk:Raymond B. Stewart Middle School

message: from VfD:
* Non-notable school submitted for deletion by a non-notable alumnus. Gamaliel 05:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: Someone needs to explain what "unitary" means in this context.  I can't figure it out from the links here, nor my own understanding of the word "unitary". Chris 03:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify 

message: On 23 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blake Junior High School for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 02:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD
Talk:German World War II fortresses

message: Hmmm...somehow this article's title sounds less than elegant. I propose moving it to "German late-war strongholds" or "German strongholds at the end of WW2" or something similar if nobody objects. -- Ferkelparade π 12:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Stalingrad and Breslau have nothing in common in military strategy and phase of the war. I do not think that this article has merit unless it confines itself to a certain type of strongholds i.e the ones in Pommern and Eastern Germany in 1945. Otherwise I think I will rais a VfD for this article. Andries 22:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Deletion or renaming for confining 

message: I have added a Crete entry. Feel free to correct it - I'm not sure what the besiegers were (the Royal Navy and the Hellenic Army)?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crete 

message: Does Festung Norwegen qualify? It did not see any fight. And what's about the Alpine Fortress?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Festung Norwegen and Alpenfestung 

message: Had Glogau ever been designated as a Festung?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glogau 

message: This word does not seem like the right one. German Wiki uses Fester Platz and English sources tend to use "fortress". Srnec (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strongholds" 

message: No, it didn't, their fate was the same everywhere: they were all evacuated and/or dismantled. How and when that happened varied, many only after the end of the war.  This has been present since 2004, but I think what the OP may have meant, was the path to that same end varied. This should be made clearer. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It explains very clearly in the following sentences what it means by "The fate of tbe fortress areas varied". 2A01:B340:62:DB99:A292:A23A:C504:CD11 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The fate of the fortress areas varied"
Talk:Mike Scioscia

message: Wierd. Apparently edits do display while an article is still up for possible deletion. I wonder why. BeakerK44 06:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits during VfD 

message: There should be some info of the great moments he had while a player.  There is one missing, and I cannot seem to find it anywhere, where Scioscia hits a pitch that was thrown outside for an intentional walk.  I don't know how many players have done this, but I imagine very few, if any.Miniedit (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Player Info
Talk:Bruxism

message: -Not sure if this is someone deliberately grinding, or if it is a recording of a person with bruxism. Not sure it is suitable for the article... Lesion (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we include this? 

message: Here are a couple sources that claim by keeping the tongue on the roof of the mouth it can counter act the force of the masseters, and balance each other to eliminate jaw tension and bruxism:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15747813
http://claimingpower.com/dr-mike-mew-2014-presentation-adult-cases-ncr-facemax-bruxism-and-its-affect-on-lower-jaw/
Bottlefeeding, sucking on a pacifier, and mouth breathing when young conditions the tongue to stay on the bottom of the mouth when it's natural position should be against the palate.
The proper way is to get the posterior 3rd of the tongue onto the top palate, even to the point of slightly blocking your windpipe, not just the front of the tongue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hompo2015 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The first source is primary and should be used with caution, see wp:medrs for more info. It is preferable to use review papers, mainstream textbooks, etc. Second source certainly appears unreliable. I suggest this concept relates more to temporomandibular disorder. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tongue and oral posture to cure bruxism 

message: A short description has been added: "Disorder that involves involuntarily grinding or clenching of the teeth".
Bruxism does not always occur during sleep. When it occurs during consciousness, I'm not sure there's a hard-and-fast boundary between voluntary and involuntary (otherwise people with TMJD would have no success in consciously minimising occlusal contact when not eating. Tony (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wobbly definition 

message: The redirect 😬 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:😬]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Military history of Japan/Archive 1

message: First, let me just say how disgusted I am that people continue to think of the Rape of Nanking when they think of Japanese history. World War II was much more than just the events of a few days in one Chinese city; and the 1000+ year history of Japan is far far more than just World War II. No other country, except perhaps Germany, faces such hatred and discrimination, and it's just entirely inappropriate for anyone who considers themselves even somewhat a historian.
Second, this article looks like it was written by someone who doesn't believe in the definite article (i.e. the word 'the'). I'm gonna rework it.
LordAmeth 20:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanking!?
Talk:Emperor Kanmu

message: "Kanmu" or "Kammu", which one is right? Ryuch 07:28, 13 Oct 2004 --  diff? 
:There are many systems of romanization, that is, writing foreign words using the Roman alphabet. One system, which is conventional with the Japanese as well as foreign students learning Japanese, especially from a linguistic perspective, would spell it "Kanmu." Another system, which serves to communicate pronunciation to readers who don't speak Japanese, would write it "Kammu." So rather than a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of purpose and readership. Personally, I believe "Kammu" better suits me, although "Kanmu" is more conventional among the Japanese and scholars. Fg2 07:56, Oct 13, 2004 --  diff?
::Since this is an English wiki page, the romanization system used should be the one which best aids speakers of English. As this is generally the Hepburn System, I would suggest that "桓武"　should be rendered as "Kanmu" not "Kammu", as is the standard for that system. --Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: explanatory spelling note in first paragraph, see discussion thread at Talk:Emperor Temmu#Tenmu versus Temmu. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japanese this emperor is called 桓武天皇（かんむてんのう) = Kanmu Tenno. So the most accurate writing is Kanmu which is also preferred by The Imperial Household Agency. The page name is Emperor Kanmu including on other language wiki pages. I recommend that the name be written as "Kanmu" in this wiki page. -Artanisen (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Kanmu versus Kammu

message: An anonymous editor added several links in the "See also" section -- see  here.  This Punjabi contributor made several similar edits:
* 07:35, 18 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Emperor Kammu ‎ (→See also)
* 07:31, 18 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Fujiwara no Kamatari ‎ (→See also) 
* 07:26, 18 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Fujiwara clan ‎ (→See also) 
* 07:22, 18 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Kamakura ‎ (→See also) 
* 07:19, 18 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Mimasaka Province ‎ (→References) 
* 07:17, 18 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Hōnen ‎ (→Early life) 
In my view, the following are too much of a stretch in the context of Emperor Kammu:
* Kamma
* Kumo Xi
* Saka Kamboja
* Sakha Republic
* Sakhalin
* Indo-Aryan Migration
* Turkic migration
Whatever the intention, this needs more explanation and discussion. --Tenmei (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tangential links

message: The first line of the article says he was born in 737, but the infobox says 735. Which is correct? LordAmeth (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB 