lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:SPQR tree

message: It would be useful first of all to clarify whether the connectivity involved is edge-connected or vertex-connected, or whether both variants fall out of the same algorithm.  MaxEnt 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

message: I checked all the references cited in this article, and none of them defines the SPQR tree as this article does. Differences are minimal, such as the tree being rooted, directed or having an extra Q node. So I am asking if anyone knows the author of this nice definition published here in Wikipedia. 148.218.36.14 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the content currently in the article was written by me in 2009. It was not my intention to introduce differences from the literature, but I think rooting the tree would be a mistake: as an unrooted tree it is uniquely defined, as a rooted tree it is not. The Q nodes are a bit more problematic as different sources use or don't use them for different things. FWIW I believe that the definitions here are the same as the ones in my own recent papers that use SPQR trees e.g. at SoCG 2010 and 2013. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrooted version definition

message: The so-called (and one could argue mis-named) "SPQR tree" was introduced by Tutte in order to describe the structure of 2-separations of a 3-connected graph.  All the terminology and references in this article seem to have been written in ignorance of Tutte's 3-block decomposition and his terminology.  That ought to be corrected by someone who knows enough history.  I ought to but I'm too busy currently.  A good reference is Tutte's textbook Graph Theory (1984).  I can't give the original reference; none of my reference works is with me now.  Zaslav (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In this our article follows much of the recent literature on the subject, which also unfortunately ignores Mac Lane's contributions and even that of Hopcroft and Tarjan (already mentioned here) and instead acts as if this structure was first invented by Di Battista and Tamassia, even though D & T themselves cited some of this earlier work. If you do find the missing references please list them here so they can be included. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will when I can but still don't have my books accessible.  Zaslav (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Tutte?
Talk:Doggerel

message: Delete this page. It's just a word. It's in the wiktionary. Doesn't need a pedia entry 74.71.26.210 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this page

message: None of the examples of "Usage" show the word being used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.21.66 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of usage

message: Why is there a See Also link to Magda Lupescu?  Either it is not relevant, or there should be an explanation as to why it is relevant, as it is not immediately obvious.  
--Mitzy 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also: Magda Lupescu 

message: Perhaps it is that I am not well acquainted with all (or rather any) of the nuances of poetry, but the examples failed to exemplify anything about the meaning of doggerel as per the definition provided. Perhaps they might be shortened to the relevant quotes rather than the entire poem? Or highlighted or underlined or really anything else for that matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.57.11 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The examples seem rather opinionated 

message: Why is all the text centered instead of justified to the left of the page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.32.154 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Centered text

message: For instance, this sentence:
"Julia A. Moore, the "The Sweet Singer of Michigan," was a surprising best seller in 1876 with her Sentimental Song Book, despite the ineptitude of her poetry."
It's fine to cite a published source to explain that someone's work was widely thought to be inept.
It is totally inappropriate to simply state that someone's work was inept (or great, or whatever).Daqu (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article blatantly violates Wikipedia's no-POV policy. 

message: Many people would be interested to know why cheap verse is called 'doggerel', but the canine connection needs to be explained. Valetude (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep page
Talk:Katherine Ciesinski

message: I included a full discography here. The source was KC's own academic page. Unfortunately half the items have been removed. Why was that, I wonder? -- Kleinzach 10:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: Could User:OxfamEditor possibly explain the deletion of the word opera from the lead? After all, she is an opera singer, isn't she? Thank you. --Kleinzach 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Opera]]tic or not?

message: Absolutely. Very valid question. While Katherine's operatic successes have been fairly high profile and lauded, her work in lieder, recital, and chamber music has actually outpaced her operatic work. The recitals with her sister are staggering by number. 
Hope this helps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxfamEditor (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Opera]]tic and more
Talk:Rule Interchange Format

message: "Whereas ontologies describe distributed information onjects in a computer executable manner"
The meaning of this is lost on me... 
 - onjects = objects ?
 - ontologies have to be distributed ?
 - by executable do you mean it can be parsed or do you really mean it can be run by the operation system ?
Confused Bugone
:I did a rewrite; hopefully this is clearer now. -- Beland (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: RIF is now an official W3C Recommendation -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-core-20100622/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.157.233 (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: ... have mercy on those who do not yet know what you are talking about. At least at the beginning of the article.
It would be nice to have at least the introductory sentence give you a faint idea what this article is talking about. A sentence like "The Rule Interchange Format (RIF) is a W3C Recommendation" which defines the article's subject by means of a link to somewhere in the middle of some other technical article is not very helpful. --84.190.85.67 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please... 

message: The article speaks of "the following Venn diagram", but there is none. One could delete this dangling reference, but perhaps someone can restore the Venn diagram? --Tillmo (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: aha, I see that the Venn diagram is contained in [5]. But this is not obvious. I suggest to copy the Venn diagram into the article (if the license admits, see https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license ) or else to redraw it. --Tillmo (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venn diagram
Talk:Joe Pags

message: The day after the death of Andrew Breitbart the power went out on the morning radio show of Glenn Beck.  Glenn Beck in Dallas announced that due to the 'hit', we would hear Joe Pags in Houston Texas.  (Joe says his name is Joe Pags.) Joe Pags does a great job as a Conservative commentator, taking calls from listeners to discuss the news of the day, including the tape Breitbart said he would release March 1st yesterday with Barack Hussein Obama at Harvard. [This paragraph is put in to (1) start the TALK page of Joe Pags; and (2) document some items that may become important to Joe Pag's WP Article.] Hope This Helps,  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Pags substitutes for Glenn Beck 

message: Although this has been discussed on WP:RSN many times before...  the issue with Breitbart is not its POV (it's true that sources are allowed to have opinions.)  The issue is that it does not come anywhere remotely close to the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that WP:RS requires, especially for a WP:BLP.  There's some room for it to be cited for opinions, but for factual statements in a BLP, it's a remove-on-sight source - it cannot be cited in that context ever, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breitbart news
Talk:Equisetales

message: I believe that this page satisfies criteria 2 and 3 at Wikipedia:Merge.
*In terms of Criterion 2 (Overlap), there is huge overlap with the parent group Equisetopsida, and this page contains absolutely no new information not contained within that page.
*In terms of 3, there is not else much to be said about the clade that is better said here than in a smaller or larger page, as far as I can think of; I would be surprised if any notable expansion occurred.
I feel it is more useful to have two good articles on the Equitopsdia and Equisetum than a poorer quality article at each level on the hierarchical level, so propose this merger. There is always Wikispecies for short one-line stubs about taxonomic groupings. Your comments would be welcomed.
Verisimilus T 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  There is not huge overlap here.  The Equisetales includes not only the living Equisetum but also the major fossil family Calamitaceae, which is not in the same family.  Although the page contains little new information now, the potential for significant quantities of information exists which should not be covered elsewhere.  The Equisetopsida is a larger group still, and includes the Sphenophyllales, which has significant mophological differences from both the Equisetales.   The general working principle for WP:PLANTS has been to merge plant taxa only when the includes species are the same for both pages, and there are guidelines for which name should be retained in such cases.  In this situation, Equisetales is not the same group as Equisetum (Equisetales) includes two additional families besides the Equisetaceae) nor is it the same group as Equisetopsida (which includes two additional orders to the Equisetales).  --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, perhaps I've not made myself clear.  Of course the groups are not the same entity, but the Equisetopsida article already contains details of the Equisetales; what's more, it places it in the context of its sister groups, and provides a better forum to discuss the differences between the groups.  Perhaps you could give an indication of what sort of information may eventually be added to this page? Verisimilus T 13:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going ahead with merger: taking lack of further response to be agreement. Verisimilus T 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I already have.  You proceded with a merger out of process, and without consensus, therefore it was reverted.  The WP:PLANTS group prefers separate pages for separate taxa unless the membership is identical, which it is not in this case.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Many thanks for your opinion.  In that case, could you give me an pointer towards some information I could use to expand this specific article? Thanks, Verisimilus T 10:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
Talk:Quinn Redeker

message: An IP editor is attempting to change the article to report that Redeker has died, but they have not cited a published reliable source to verify. Unfortunately, the IP editor is not experienced with editing Wikipedia pages, so their attempts have been malformed. If you have any reliable sources to cite, please add them here so that we can incorporate them into the article. — Archer1234 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Death has been reported by Variety. — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death?
Talk:Calamitaceae

message: :This page badly needs graphics! Who has some available? jaknouse (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a photographic slide collection that includes some (also Sphenophyllales), but I unfortunately have no means of scanning them at present.  However, I may have scanned some in the past, and will see whether I can locate them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't seem to have any digital versions, but I'm asking around about the availability of a slide scanner.  I do have several nice slides of casts, impression fossils, and anatomical slides from coalball peels. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added three image from the commons Calamitaceae subcategories. --Kevmin (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphics
Wikipedia talk:Classification of sources

message: This is currently a very rough start to get a basic idea, and it needs a lot of work. Be bold, or discuss here, as you feel appropriate. SamBC(talk) 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very rough start

message: There's one or two things I'm unsure of in this new version, but the most salient is that the general use of the terms does not require a secondary source to only collate information. Analysing the information and drawing conclusions, making comparisons, etc, doesn't create a primary source. That's why NOR ended up with the distinction, because we have to cite secondary sources in order to have analysis that isn't OR. SamBC(talk) 08:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Mattisse 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COGDEN's major change
Talk:The Field School

message: Pretty sure that Bill Nye isn't a graduate. I am, and I would have known. Bill Nye's own page says he went to Sidwell Friends.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.252.90 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

message: I will go elsewhere to learn more about this school.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.170.83 (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifying the 20 universities that admitted students from its senior class -  undermines the objectivity of the article  

message: I deleted "Having the smallest average class size for any D.C. school and challenging, comprehensive curricula, Field is considered one of the best independent schools in the Washington, D.C. area," which is unsourced and nonsubstantive; show me a private school that doesn't claim it has "challenging, comprehensive curricula," whatever that means.  I don't believe this sentence is additive to a neutral encyclopedia article. Julietdeltalima  (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate [[WP:PUFFERY]] in lede
Talk:Shadwell, Virginia

message: I am adding content to give more of a flavor of the background of Shadwell. It can be summarized as needed, but I don't see a problem of providing information about it's economic influences. I was in the middle of editing when content was removed, some added by me, some that had already been in the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the two edits that removed content... and returned the citation and a bit of info about the growth of the town after WWI.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article content
Talk:Give Until There's Nothing Left

message: Really--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 03:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we get some proof please?
Talk:Wüstite

message: Magnetite
As a chemist I find the statement "The formula for magnetite is more accurately written as FeO. Fe2O3 than as Fe3O4. Magnetite is one part FeO and one part Fe2O3, rather than a solid solution of wüstite and hematite." as misleading. Fe3O4 is a chemical compound, all atoms are nicely and regularly placed in a crystal lattice.
Wustite isn't FeO
Wustite is correctly identified as non-stoichiometric late in the article lede. As Wustite is non-stoichiometric (always!) - is there any way that you could show this your mineral box rather than the misleading FeO?. The pretty rock salt lattice picture of the the structure of FeO further misleads the casual reader into thinking that FeO has some occurence in nature- wustite isn't FeO - FeO is thermodynamcally unstable and pyrophoric.
Axiosaurus (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetite is a chemical compound, a mixed oxidation state iron oxide. Wustite isn't FeO!
Talk:Pierre Darmon

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.jewishsports.net/BioPages/PierreDarmon.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Eveready East Africa

message: :While some information in this article could be factual, it refers to some entirely different entity rather than Eveready East Africa .There is only one Eveready East Africa, based in Nakuru, Kenya which was founded in 1967.See company website 
[Eveready East Africa]
:This page should be redone altogether--Mujoka (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was created by Chloride (now banned) who started a whole load of articles of dubious worth. Lots of them have been deleted following AfDs. We could probably AfD this, or simply redirect to Energizer Holdings. Ditto B.E.R.E.C., another article that says little in its own right. These are essentially one-fact articles that could be merged in. Fourohfour 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support either action: flagging it for deletion or redirecting. (I'm not the most experienced Wikipedian so will follow advice on this.) Its one or two facts, I suppose, should be included in the Energizer article which appears to me to be somewhat US-focused. Wavehunter 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I looked at the company website and researched this article a long time ago, a User:Chloride wrote the article, and contrary to the first comment, it is a decent corporate stub.  The company did split from Eveready, it is its own company, and it is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange.  Any comments to this I would be glad to entertain.  Format of references needs to be improved..... there is a listing at Google finance for this company. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Apparently, I was thinking of a different article, the article stub has been rewritten as per the above comments. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Arboricity

message: changed the lede sentence to read "The arboricity of an undirected graph is the size of the minimum forest into which its edges can be partitioned." I believe it is wrong in multiple ways, so I reverted, but it may be worth more discussion here.
* First, if a graph has cycles, its edges cannot be partitioned into a single forest. A forest is a single graph with no cycles, or equivalently the disjoint union of trees. If one partitions the edges of a cyclic graph into disjoint trees, the trees are not disjoint, so it is not a forest.
* Second, the "size" of a forest is unclear and it is not obvious that it refers to the number of trees.
* Third, the number of trees into which the edges of a graph can be partitioned is not the same as arboricity. Consider, e.g., a dumbell graph formed by two cycles connected by a single bridge edge. Its arboricity is two (it is easy to partition the edges into two forests: just make one forest consist of an edge from each cycle, and the other forest consist of all the rest of the edges) but if one tries to partition its edges into trees, three trees are required.
—David Eppstein 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's correct. For arboricity, the problem is to partition the edges of the graph into forests; they don't have to be connected. Partitioning the edges into connected trees (that might not span all the vertices) is a different and  much harder problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent redefinition by Phaunt
Talk:District of Columbia Public Library

message: The article, not suprisingly, cleverly leaves out any mention of security measures the DCPL has, particularly with regard to the Teen Space.  Qui potest capere capiat.Godofredo29 (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Security

message: — Assignment last updated by AugustPhoenix (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Literacy and Inclusion
Talk:David Strong

message: I have now made the article a stub.  I've also added further information about Strong's philosophy to hopefully avoid a speedy deletion of this article.
Crofab
Its enough to prevent a speedy, but not enough to show notability. Professors at a college are not automatically notable--see WP:PROF. The minimum that would be necessary is reviews showing his books are considered notable, or widely used as textbooks. DGG (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub
Talk:Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 34

message: I highly doubt the claim that LC-34 is under consideration for use in the Constellation program. Logawi 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Title says it all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.133.25 (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth mentioning that this structure is in the movie Armageddon (I think)? 

message: I added this to the opening paragraph... The first crewed Apollo launch — Apollo 7 on October 11, 1968 — was the last time LC-34 was used. 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first crewed Apollo launch - Apollo 7 on October 11, 1968 - was the last time LC-34 was used
Talk:Fairview, Dublin

message: Added St. Joseph's Secondary School as a place of note.  Lochdale 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Akitoshi Saito

message: Is this worth mentioning?
:"Akitoshi Saito, who delivered the back suplex that resulted in Misawa's death, is reported to be on 'suicide watch', according to Tokyo Sports. 
:It is unclear whether he has already attempted to take his own life, but it is clearly a major concern for NOAH officials. 
:In a heartbreaking turn of events, Saito's home was attacked by fans who are quite unreasonably blaming him for Misawa's death."
from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/2492824/Misawa-Mitsuharu-wanted-to-quit-wrestling-before-he-died.html
65.43.96.3 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide watch, vandalism

message: Hi, all of the sections need more sources, I have put templates on the places that need more sources so if anyone can help by adding sources that will be a big help. Jack345110 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources