lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Neeme Järvi

message: I've left in the sentence "He has worked with Eduardo Mata, Rey Alejandro Conde Valdivia, Georg Solti, and Antal Dorati", but I'm not very clear what it means, and some clarification would be good. He didn't study with these people as far as I can make out - does it just mean that he was guest conductor with orchestras of which these guys were the principal conductor? Like I say, a spot of clarification would be good, I think. --Camembert
:Good work; it is any case, a collective improvement on the original . Who knows if the anon user will follow up your query...  -- Viajero 20:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been unable to find verification for the ambigious line "He has worked with Eduardo Mata, Rey Alejandro Conde Valdivia, Georg Solti, and Antal Dorati" and have cut it for the time being. As an orchestral, conductor, exactly how he "has worked with" other orchestral conductors is unclear. MarkBuckles 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Järvi has worked with

message: I think Succession boxes might not be the best way to display Jarvi's career. I feel as though this type of device makes more sense for a list of different people in the same category. Here, I find it a bit confusing, since the first bit of information we see is who preceeded him, rather than his actual appointment. I would like to change this to a bulleted list (perhaps with his predecessor in parathesis. Thoughts? For the time being, I have added his recent appointment to the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra and sorted the boxes chronologically. MarkBuckles 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I like the succession boxes the way they are :)  If you want to add a bulleted list as well, by all means do so. Grover cleveland 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Succession boxes are used in this way all over wikipedia, not just for conductors.  See, for example, the bottom of the Winston Churchill page for a good example.  Grover cleveland 17:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, looking around more this does appear to be the standard. Fair enough! Anyone know who preceeded him in NJ? MarkBuckles 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Zdenek Macal was the prior Music Director, but there was a gap of a few years between him and Neeme Jarvi. DJRafe 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession Boxes
Talk:Giffen good

message: Geffin goods statement 2405:201:601E:2803:A5B8:7162:BDA5:4E42 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics  

message: वास्तविक जीवन की 5 गिफेन वस्तुओं का अवलोकन करें और उनके बारे में लिखें। 103.135.228.183 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics
Talk:Spotted salamander

message: I don't think these guys eat snails, though I could be wrong.
67.140.192.16 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The text says it should never be touched by human hands. The photo shows one on someone's hands. A little inconsistent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.169.11.103 (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why hands in the photo? 

message: This should be removed "The Spotted Salamander also live underneath small plastic ponds and that is where I found mine. They are really big." 24.97.230.243 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I" Statements 

message: The article and reference mentioned they are photosynthetic, but semantically this is not true. They are hosts to symbiotic algae.  Their genes do not code for chlorophyll.Gigemag76 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photosythesis 

message: According to the article, this species is “the only known example of vertebrate cells hosting an endosymbiont microbe”. Isn’t Hynobius nigrescens another one now? See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pre.12173 palpalpalpal (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the only one?
Talk:Overhand knot with draw-loop

message: This page should be renamed to 'Slipped Half Hitch'.
According to precise knot naming basics, this is not an overhand.
And the knot index should also be corrected.
[[[Special:Contributions/2602:306:BC46:44A0:71A0:3236:3F0F:C43B|2602:306:BC46:44A0:71A0:3236:3F0F:C43B]] (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

message: As a hitch, it is a slipped half hitch.  As a free stopper knot, it is a slipped overhand knot. I have added redirects from slipped half-hitch, slipped half hitch, and slipped overhand knot.  Knottedup (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationships with other knots 

message: seems like they are different but in other wiki language pages they are related.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaripov999 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it related to Noose(ABOK 43) or slip knot (ABOK 44) or round turn and slipped half hitch (ABOK 1785) ?
Talk:Marbled Godwit

message: Does anyone know how to stop the image at the bottom overlapping the taxotable (probably only a problem on a 800x600 screen, but still...
seglea 02:54, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Proportional Representation using the Single Transferable Vote

message: Re a change at Instant Runoff Voting, Jtdirl wrote:
: rv. stop trying to claim that instant-runoff voting is what is used in single seat PR. It is still called PR.STV
Cool, my first edit war!  Since the issue is the definition of "PR.STV" rather than "IRV" I figure this is the best place to discuss it.  
I have never seen PR.STV used to refer to single winner STV, but more importantly "single seat PR" doesn't make any sense.  By definition there is nothing proportional about a single winner election.  
I agree that the many names for STV and its relatives are a confusing mess.  Wikipedia is possibly the first forum detailed and international enough to have had to deal with it in full.  Terms I've seen used are:  
 seats > 0        STV  Hare Preferential
 seats = 1        STV  IRV   Preferential 
 seats > 1        STV  PR.STV  Quota Preferential  Hare  Hare-Clark
So the 'best' meanings of STV, Hare and Preferential can be debated, but IRV and PR.STV are unambiguous. 
 -- Pm67nz 03:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Index of Canada-related articles

message: I'm undecided as to whether or not allow individual peoples names on this page or add links such as 'List of people...' who did this or that with their names on a separate page. What does everyone here think? SD6-Agent 06:24, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a List of Canadians. I don't think we should (or need to) put individual names on the List of Canada-related topics page as well. RedWolf 06:37, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
That's why I was deciding against it. I'll remove individual names from this page then. SD6-Agent 06:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: That's probably a good idea, otherwise there would be hundreds of links, at least. Although a lot of the names on this page were probably put there by me :) Adam Bishop 07:49, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: why isn't it showing up?Catchpoke (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed Catchpoke (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  table of contents
Talk:November 29

message: Michael Jackson's Thriller is widely regarded as the best selling album of all time. Which is why I think it warrants a place on the list.
I've already tried adding it, but was rejected as ""Best selling album of all time" can become inaccurate very easily.". I find this rejection wrong, as while another album could very well take Thrillers place in the future, the album has had this distinction for a long time. Furthermore, I'd argue its cultural impact alone warrants a place on the list.
References supporting the possible change: List of best-selling albums https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70133-best-selling-albumhttps://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/exclusive-how-michael-jacksons-thriller-changed-the-music-business-268212/
Ra1d Danois (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jackson's Thriller
Talk:Kuratowski closure axioms

message: How do you get axiom 4 (empty set is fixed point) from the single statement you have (pres. of finitary unions)? I don't see it. Unless you didn't mean that it was equivalent, that's what it sounds like. Revolver
It would be preservation of a nullary union. Not a big deal.
:It just means that axioms 3) and 4) together are equivalent to
: \forall n: c(A_{1} \cup \cdots \cup A_{n}) = c(A_{1}) \cup \cdots \cup c(A_{n}) \! .
:One way it is just induction. The other way round you apply the formula with n = 0 and :n = 2 respectively. Cthulhu.mythos 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rewrote and extended the article to make clear how other basic topological notions (like continuous function) can be defined using only the closure operator. MathMartin 17:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote article

message: As remarked above the conditions claimed to give Moore closure are insufficient to establish monotonicity. From the definitions I find by Google search I have the impression that X can be more abstract than a set; it further appears that cl(Ø) = X (the top of the lattice). I propose to delete this part as being dubious (and in any case of dubious value). -LambiamTalk 08:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moore closure 

message: "The space X is connected if no two subsets are separated" is wrong. I can easily find two separated subsets of \mathbb{R}.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.158.209 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.129.234.21.188 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of connected space is wrong 

message: The discussion of weakenings and alternative axioms seems somewhat poorly construed. For example
"Because of extensivity [K2], it is possible to weaken the equality in [K3] to a simple inclusion" suggests that one could replace [K3] by "for all A \subseteq X,  \mathbf{c}(A) \subseteq \mathbf{c}(\mathbf{c}(A))". Of course this is merely a consequence of [K2], and the 'simple inclusion' meant is  \mathbf{c}(A) \supseteq \mathbf{c}(\mathbf{c}(A)). Is anything gained by changing the equality to an inequality is this way? I have removed this.
The sentence "It is straightforward to show that weakening the equality in [K4] to a simple inclusion (subadditivity) and assuming [K4'] yields back to [K4]" is also somewhat tortuous. Given what we have just seen, in what direction can we imagine our 'simple inclusion' to run? I have rephrased but it is perhaps still not perfect?129.234.21.188 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weakenings 

message: The article of Monteiro (and thus the axiom [M]) is not about Kuratowski closure, it is about Moore closure (no preservation of unions), although the article calls it Sierpinski closure.
There is a remark about the axiom [BT] (which does axiomatise Kuratowski closure, given that the empty set is a fixed point) in the article. It is remarked that it would axiomatise Moore closure if the equality in [BT] is replaced by an inclusion. 164.15.254.98 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axiom [M] axiometises Moore closure, not Kuratowski closure.
Talk:C. Vann Woodward

message: which tom watson was his dissertation on? wikipedia lists several. WillC 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. WillC 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Watson 

message: Woodward's two biggest and most well known books: Origins of the New South and The Strange Career of Jim Crow do not have their own pages but I think they should.  These two books are pillars of Southern history works and seem to constantly come up in academic and historiographical references.  I added a link to those pages even though they do not exist yet to bring attention to their lack of coverage.  I am not a historian and therefore do not feel qualified to write much on them.  Someone with more experience should take a look at them.  Hedfones (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. The Strange Career of Jim Crow was a seminal work by Woodward. I'd be happy to take a look and contribute when I get a chance. Thanks for thinking of this. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C Vann Woodward's Books
Talk:Spinor bundle

message: Another page that doesn't take time to say its piece. No good just to refer to another page for all notation.
Charles Matthews 09:17, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  take the time ...

message: Some of the results from https://web.archive.org/web/20171002195758/http://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1988-307-01/S0002-9947-1988-0936818-5/S0002-9947-1988-0936818-5.pdf
should be discussed on this page. This thesis https://web.archive.org/web/20171002195817/http://pages.uoregon.edu/adding/theses/phd_thesis.pdf gives explicit models for spinor bundles on quadrics on page 19.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username6330 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinor Bundles on Quadrics
Talk:Jane Roberts

message: We need some more information on Jane's life apart from Seth . . . childhood, death and so on. She talks of it some in The God of Jane, but the page here is still Seth-heavy and does kind of skimps on her biography. NoVomit (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has matured again in recent months, so I will update an earlier question here: Responding to the query above, is there any interest in Jane's contributions to the writing process? Hers is the only per-minute documented writing process I know of. Word/hour data with pauses could ve valuable. She also certainly added some visibility to the method of dictation to a collaborator as a way to enhance creativity. TaoPhoenix (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: agreed. This is definitely a fan that wrote this 47.37.226.123 (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Does the criticism in this article meet Wikipedia’s standards? Videos like “Jane Roberts' Seth Speaks is Anti-Catholic Hate Books – Allowed By The Media"” don’t seem to come from reputable sources nor to make fair claims (let alone objective statements, but the topics are metaphysical in nature.)—j9t (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Criticism 

message: The bulk of this article is uncited, so I have added a template to the top. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bulk of this article is uncited
Talk:Gaius Asinius Pollio

message: "In 54 he impeached unsuccessfully C. Porcius Cato, who in his tribunate (56) had acted as the tool of the triumvirs." Now, what Cato is this? Not Cato the younger i hope... Muriel Victoria 10:05, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs some serious work. I've removed references to dodgy websites ("Jesus was Caesar") and other wikis, but all were really left with is encyclopedias. An encyclopedia article based on other encyclopedia articles is obviously unsatisfactory. I'll have a go at gathering some proper sources and rewrite it. --Nicknack009 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup needed

message: The article says that Pollio introduced Vergil to Augustus in the year he died, 4 AD.  This is taken from a webpage "The Believer".  It's true that Pollio introduced Vergil to Augustus and that Pollio died in 4 AD (or 5, actually), but Vergil died in 19 BC and was introduced to Augustus in the 20s BC (I think).  I'll try to clean this up when I have time but if someone is interested please go ahead.
Curtisdozier (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollio and Vergil 

message: I removed the sentence stating that Pollio was cuckolded by Dolabella. The reference in Plutarch's Antony 9 is to Antony being cuckolded, not Pollio.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.117.66 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollio not cuckolded by Dolabella 

message: There are three consuls listed for the year 40 B.C. None of them are listed as "Suffect". They obviously cannot all be correct. The three men listed as Consuls are, "Gnaeus Domitious Calvinus", "Lucius Cornelius Balbus" who according to Kenneth Harl WAS consul in 40 B.C., and "Gaius Asinius Pollio". They cannot all be correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1600:619D:81ED:4C79:E0D7:55B5 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Consuls listed for the year 40 B.C.
Talk:Zebra

message: Zebra meat was mainly eaten by European colonisers; among African cultures only the San are known to eat it regularly.
Reason from above: 
From search for term "meat" in Google books (did not return page numbers): "As noted above, most colonizers didn't take to zebra meat, though Africans continued to eat it." Other snippets also suggest this was far from black and white.
— MaxEnt 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge black and white distillation 

message: MDali 2400:C600:451D:13A1:1:0:B68D:CCE6 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  আপনার Shukkur8785-এর জন্য রিকোয়েস্ট করা নতু 

message: Characteristics tab > Stripes > function > crypsis hypothesis > Sentence beginning "Melin and colleagues (2016) found that lions..", "expect" should be changed to "except". Catch a ride (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for spotting this typo! Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023 

message: In the table of extant species, Grévy's zebra is listed with a shoulder height of 4.10–5.25 ft.  The other two species are listed with their non-metric heights in inches (43–57 and 46–57 for the plains and mountain zebras, respectively).
Recommend changing Grévy's imperial unit height to 49–63 in to match the other two.  It'd also internally match the other non-metric measurements for body & tail length.  Finally, listing shoulder heights in inches is an easy conversion to HH (yes, hh is supposed to be for the withers). Cjmcjmcjmcjm (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the same non-metric unit for height on all 3 species 

message: 2601:401:4300:3720:C8C:19DC:59D8:4D77 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: No reliable source is given for the Pliocene dating. The subgenus link should not be added per MOS:CIRCULAR. Jamedeus (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2024 

message: Under "Characteristics":
Change "amount of stripes" to "number of stripes".
"Amount" pertains to a singular, "number" to a plural.
Thank you.
Walter Delahunt 24.222.182.150 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamedeus (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024 

message: This deletion attempt may be of interest to editors of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 zebra escape]]
Talk:Sci-fi

message: Science fiction fans of the "serious" as well as the frivolous kind often actively avoid the use of the term "sci-fi" in order not to hurt the feelings of those who feel embarassed or otherwise hurt by the jokey pun.
Thus, the appearance of the term "sci-fi", in text or in conversation, is sometimes an indication of a certain lack of politeness or of a certain degree of ignorance or both.
In other words, these people would not recognize Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics if it hit them in the face. It is logical to very discretely help them or to quietly ignore them, depending on the circumstances. 
The article does not currently spell out the terribly "loaded" nature of the term or its use as a practical way of distinguishing the literate from those who are repeating things without understanding what they are saying.
----
Even though I started helping to flesh out the list of authors, etc., I think the lists should be removed and replaced by text directing the user to science fiction where there are already extensive lists. UtherSRG 18:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Done.  Revert if you disagree.  Samw 18:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage avoidance 

message: I recall seeing the term scientifiction (scientific__fiction) before, especially in old material discussion SF stemming from the UK. (At least until the early 1960s). I am not sure if it should be mentioned in this article, however. Jordi·✆ 00:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term was the original word for science fiction, once it started being a separate genre - and was coined by Hugo Gernsback, if I remember correctly (after whom the Hugo awards were named) in the 1920s. It is a very rare term today.  Grutness|hello?  06:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome reference. Now I realize what the title The Gernsback Continuum refers to. Jordi·✆ 07:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientifiction 

message: It has been suggested that this article be moved to science fiction. I cannot find any discussion of this, but someone went ahead and did it. This seems to have been jumping the gun a bit, so I will revert.
I oppose such a move. It is to assume that "sci fi" is a simple synonym of science fiction. It is not, for the reasons described in this article. Notinasnaid 20:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Science fiction
Talk:Trivial topology

message: To AxelBoldt: most of your changes were good, but you changed this line:
* Given a subset S of X, an element of S is a limit point of S if and only if S is not a singleton. In particular, every infinite subset of X has a limit point.
to this:
* If X has more than one element and S is some non-empty subset of X, then each element of X is a limit point of S.
The second is not correct. Given a singleton S={s}, s is not a limit point of S, because it does not lie in the closure of S-{s}, which is empty. It can still be generalized somewhat, however. I changed it to this, maybe the language could be cleaned up some:
Given a subset S of X which is not a singleton, all elements of X are limit points of S. If S is a singleton, every point of X \ S is still a limit point of S. In particular, every infinite subset of X has a limit point. 
Derrick Coetzee 15:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes