lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:I, the Jury

message: I'd like to point out that this article is mainly about the novel. <KF> 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'd like

message: "I, the Jury (1953) is a United Artists film based on the best-selling book written by Mickey Spillane released a year earlier."
Wasn't the novel first published in 1947, as it is claimed earlier in the same text? <KF> 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... released a year earlier."?? 

message: I have changed the wording of the ending because I believe it is inaccurate to call Hammer's ultimate actions an execution.  An execution is the carrying out of a court's death sentence, which is not what Hammer is doing; indeed the point of the title is that he considers himself his own jury and disdains the whole idea of deferring to a court.  His shooting of Charlotte is either murder (revenge for her own murder of his buddy) or self-defense (because she was trying to get hold of her own gun and shoot him).  My own thought is that it is murder, because he states his intention to kill her before she tries for her gun; thus it would be Charlotte, and not Hammer, who was acting in self-defense.
Incidentally, Hammer himself in retrospect calls his act a killing rather than an execution, in Vengeance is Mine.
Pirate Dan 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an execution 

message: The article on I, the Jury says: None of the guests at Williams's party has a watertight alibi, but . . .
Alibi for what? No crime has been mentioned in the previous text.
Pablito (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right!  The new plot summary is unacceptable.  I've reverted it; try reading the old one.  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I, the Jury: Alibi for what? 

message: The "Analysis" section lacks sources, and I suspect it is original research. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis section 

message: The section in this article called Plot summary is so long that it is almost a lie to call it a summary. It looks like it will be as long as the original novel in its forthcoming final draft. I wanted a snappy outline of what the book was about; this was far too long so I didn't read it.
This affliction is common in Wikipedia where passionate devotees of a work can't help mounting their hobby horses to painful length and driving the rest of us to distraction. --O'Dea (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Christ's sake! 

message: Just thought i'd mention it was also mentioned on M.A.S.H Season 9 episode 10 - Operation Friendship.  dunno if anybody wanted to add it. 50.137.3.98 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture 

message: Right now the plot summary goes to rather acrobatic pains to hide the identity of the murderer, which seems rather preposterous for a book that is over 60 years old and has adapted into multiple films. If I have time, I'm adding the murderer's name. Whenelvisdied (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Summary
Talk:Caesium

message: What's the source of :File:AirDoseChernobylVector.svg? ("A graph showing the relative contributions made by different substances to the levels of radiation in Prypiat after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.") There must be one but I couldn't find it after a (rather quick) search. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph source 

message: Here are statements that I deleted today.
1) "The golden colour of caesium comes from the decreasing frequency of light required to excite electrons of the alkali metals as the group is descended."
IMHO, this sentence says nothing, and isn't even decent English.  
2) "For lithium through rubidium this frequency [which frequency?] is in the ultraviolet, but for caesium it enters the blue–violet end of the spectrum; in other words, the plasmonic frequency of the alkali metals becomes lower from lithium to caesium. Thus caesium transmits and partially absorbs violet light preferentially while other colours (having lower frequency) are reflected; hence it appears yellowish."
So we learn that if a material absorbs at the "blue–violet end of the spectrum," it is yellow.  
--Smokefoot (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: It is yellow because it absorbs blue wavelengths

message: The redirect Сaesium 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.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Сaesium]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Double boiler

message: I've never heard of "buerre blanc."  Did the writer perhaps mean "beurre blanc?"  "Beurre" is French for butter, and would make sense here. Sara Parks Ricker 22:12, 10 August 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  buerre blanc? 

message: Why wont food burn in a double boiler?Is it becasue of the steam or maybe pressure? Pleas write my an answer below!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.234.244 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 October 2004
:i believe it will not burn because water boils at 100c so the temperature can never go above 100c, if the temperature of the water in the boiler was above 100c it would no longer be water.  so as long as there is still water in the pot, then it's at 100c max and no hotter. 67.180.178.60 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why won't food burn? 

message: Though a double boiler and a bain-marie work on the same principle, I've primarily heard the stovetop version referred to as a double boiler whereas the version used in the the oven (for cheesecakes and such) referred to as a bain-marie.  Maybe this is some kind of regional vocabulary.  To me, combining the double-boiler article with the bain-marie article would be like combining the saucepan article with the baking pan article.  But like I said, maybe this is a regionalism and most people mean exactly the same thing when they say bain-marie or double boiler. 70.231.230.109 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One doesn't need bains-marie to make a "double boiler." I often, professionally, use a pot and metal bowl. These articles should definitely not be merged. Max (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I'm flummoxed.  What is the difference between a double-boiler and a bain marie?  The illustrations I see of double boilers show the top pot fitting snugly into the bottom one, where the bain-maries (bains-marie?) are shown with a prominent gap between the pots.  Is that generally true, or is just happenstance for the pictures I've seen?  David.Throop (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration used in this article isn't very appropriate.  If you check the history and usage of :File:Can-in-can steaming.svg, you'll see that it was developed from a survival handbook and is used in a discussion of literally using cans for outdoor cooking.  Although as a schematic to explain principles it is great, the photo at bain-marie is a double boiler, albeit a weird one.  The contents of bain-marie need to be merged into this article, since "double boiler" is the proper English term.—QuicksilverT @ 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll go back to the original suggestion that Bain-marie and Double boiler be merged. I see no difference between the two other than the names. BeadleB (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bain-marie
Talk:Selena

message: Change:  A South Texas judge issued a disorderly conduct arrest warrant was issued in his name.
To:  A South Texas judge issued a disorderly conduct arrest warrant in his name. Atomsforpeas (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: RudolfRed (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024 

message: 74.102.196.7 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024 

message: The signature provided is not. Selena’s signature. There are many autographs done by the star that is public and it does not match the one on the page at all. Selena’s signature is very specific and the autograph on this page fails to replicate her signature in many areas 2600:1700:5E98:9570:645B:96F6:2381:EC94 (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the current signature is unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Removed. Charliehdb (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024 

message: In paragraph 4, it describes Yolanda as her friend and boutique manger (not the exact words but you get the point) however she was also the manager of Selena’s fan club at one point. DarthNerdy12 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yolanda Saldivar
Talk:Article Three of the United States Constitution

message: I think the full text of each article, or amendment, should be given first, or in the lede, before it gets split up and analyzed. At least, the Wikisource link should be pointed to in the body. Make it easier,p. You came here for info on Article 3, and the first piece of info is the article itself. Anyone got any problem with this? deisenbe (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including the text as a unit
Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

message: The article says that courts have ruled that COLAs are not affected by this amendment. Surely it would be more accurate to say that COLA laws affecting lawmakers are subject to the same time restrictions as concerns when they take effect, but after they do take effect they are not restrained from making adjustments according to the rules previously set forth. Is anyone able to verify that this is a more correct account of the courts' rulings? 2601:441:8300:486B:ACAC:9BBD:563A:2F19 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  COLA
Talk:Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

message: Obviously it is only because I am a non-specialist, but this wikipedia article does not clarify for me whether Article III Section 2 of the constitution is partly repealed, or only tightened by this amendment. That article gives federal courts jurisdiction over "controversies ... between a state and citizens of another state." The amendment seems to me to say the opposite. So are those words in article III nullified, or is there some sense which I am missing in which they are still valid in a modified way? The words "shall not be construed" in the amendment sound like the framers of the amendment are merely warning against a misinterpretation of the original article, but if so, what did they want the original article to mean? --Doric Loon (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The amendment overruled a Supreme Court interpretation (Chisholm v. Georgia) of those provisions in Article III, Section 2. Those provisions still apply to suits where a State is a plaintiff and the defendant is a citizen of another State or another country. SMP0328. (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification
Talk:Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

message: At one point on this page, there is a partial list of the Representatives who voted on this Amendment.  I found the Congressional Record (PDF) where the voting results are recorded.  However, there are a total of 432 names on the list which would make for a large list.  Can someone instruct me on how to add this data to the page in a more visually appealing manner? (ex: putting 3 or 4 tables across the screen, linking to a text file or PDF, or something else).  Please be aware that I haven't done editing like this before and have no idea how to do it. I would appreciate any instructions on how to do it, or where to look to find that information.
Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MistWing (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding adding a large table to this page 

message: "The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution established a nationally standardized minimum age of 18 for participation in state and local elections."
Proposed new text: "The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution provides that United States citizens who are at least 18 years old may not be denied the right to vote on account of their age." Nednick2933 (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "standardized minimum age" seems inaccurate (states are free to adopt a lower age)
Talk:Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

message: In the section headed by "1878-1910", the first paragraph seems to wander off and talk about states passing sufferafe beginning in 1910-1914. This seems out of place considering the heading.
Then, it, oddly, states: "All states that were successful in securing full voting rights for women before 1920 were located in the West." Even claiming that as sourced.  According to many sources I reviewed, NY passed sufferage in Nov 1917. And I'll confidently say it is not in the "West". Even the map later indicates MI had it prior to the 19th amaendent, and its probably a stretch to call the "West"
Can someone please fix this up? The information seems (a) oddly located and (b) wrong.
Thank you.
216.15.59.239 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (a while back) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York is a state in the West? 

message: In the legacy section, there should probably be a reference to the fact that a sizable number of American conservatives believe the Nineteenth Amendment was a mistake, and that this belief has been around for quite a while. Although it’s probably far from a majority position among GOP voters, it’s hardly a fringe view among right-wing pundits, with the likes of Ann Coulter denouncing it on the grounds that women tend to vote for more liberal candidates. Jason Whitlock has also attacked it because he said it destroyed the earlier principle of “one vote per household”. And that’s not even getting into the manosphere and its assorted figures.2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:65DE (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need some good sources which specifically talk about the 19th amendment (not women's suffrage in general) to include here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on modern opposition to it?
Talk:Euclidean algorithm

message: In the  section, we find these expressions:
* "ordinary integers"
* "normal integers".
I found these terms confusing, since
# I don't recall seeing them used, in decades of reading maths, before this; and
# The phrase "normal integers" occurs in close proximity to a discussion of a norm.
Perhaps both of the above phrases were meant to specify the usual or everyday integers, namely those in (or isomorphic to those in) the real numbers?  In any case, the sense of the section wouldn't suffer, and accuracy would improve, if we were to replace both "ordinary integers" and "normal integers" by "real integers".
Before I make such a change, I'd like to hear other opinions.
yoyo (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "ordinary integer" is commonly used for distinguishing usual integers from Gaussian integers, and more generally from algebraic integers. The phrase "normal integer" is less common and must changed into "ordinary integer". "Real integer" is not a good idea, because it would be WP:OR, and also because \sqrt 2 (for example) is an algebraic integer and a real number. I'll change "normal" to "ordinary", and add an explanatory footnote after the first use of "ordinary". D.Lazard (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with D.Lazard. "Ordinary integers" is not at all confusing, "normal integers" may be slightly confusing, but "real integers" is definitely confusing. Maproom (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integers: ordinary, normal, usual, real, Gaussian 

message: The present text of the article says that the Euclidean algorithm was first described in Europe by Bachet in 1624.  This can hardly be true if it was already described in Euclid's Elements, which was known in Europe in various editions and translations long before Bachet.109.149.2.98 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken. The source only says that Bachet gave the first numerical description of the algorithm in Europe. I'll edit this. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent history 

message: It seems that the only known example is the ring of Hurwitz quaternions. This must be clarified. If is true, the section must be renamed "Hurwitz quaternions". Otherwise, it must be named "Non commutative Euclidean rings" and moved to Euclidean domain. D.Lazard (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Non commutative rings" 

message: I feel the implementations given in the Implementations sections are all inaccurate.
For example, gcd(-6, 0) is 6, but the implementations return -6.
This is wrong because GCDs are always non-negative. Hexagonalpedia (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: D.Lazard (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate implementations
Talk:Les Automatistes

message: Françoise Sullivan, Thérèse Renaud, Jeanne Renaud, and Leduc should be included as Automatistes, they exhibited with them and many had pieces included in the Refus Global. Source: The Visual Arts in Canada, The Twentieth Centuryedited by Anne Whitelaw, Brian Foss, and Sandra Paikowsky. Oxford University Press Canada, 2010. Information found in Chapter 8: Paul-Émile Borduas and the Automatistes. 
Stream of consciousness is a lot different from automatism.  Andre Breton is in no way a "stream of consciousness" poet! --Daniel C. Boyer
----
Surrealism is not an artistic movement! --Daniel C. Boyer
:Uh, yes it is/was. Freshacconci 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)

message: Would an experienced editor like to incorporate the fact below from the Tippett 3 article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._3_(Tippett) into the Influences section of this article, alongside Dvorak and Bartok? It's quite a glaring omission. Also, Andriessen similarly quotes Beethoven 9 in his 'De negen symfonieën van Beethoven' (1970) for ice cream bell and orchestra - if that can be cited, that should be in here too.
192.76.8.92 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tippett Symphony No. 3 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Ninth Symphony original.png, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 7, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-05-07. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! – Howard🌽33 20:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Cook (surname)

message: * Oppose -- a reader entering the term "Lawrence Cook" and hitting Go should get the short list of Lawrence Cook, not the full list of everyone named "Cook". -- JHunterJ 20:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger from Lawrence Cook 

message: Note that this is a surname article, not a dab page (the dab page is at Cook (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The surname also serves as a disambiguation. Not all pages that disambig have the name in the title. Chris 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of the naming conventions for disambiguation pages -- disambiguation pages should end with no parenthetical or with "(disambiguation)". Instead, this is a list article (or set index article) of people by name.  Disambiguation pages aren't articles; lists are.  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Lists of names. -- JHunterJ 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname, not dab
Talk:Kolmogorov space

message: The article on Sierpinski space states that:
:A topological space is Kolmogorov if and only if it is homeomorphic to a subspace of a power of the Sierpinski space S.
Curiously, this article does not make this claim; it seems like an important claim to me. linas 17:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sierpinski space 

message: Does anybody happen to know where the terminology "Kolmogorov quotient" comes from? I've tried several google searches: , ,  (in the last one I tried to get rid of various wikipedia mirrors and similar sites). 
BTW if the T0-spaces are taken as the reflective subcategory of the category Top then the Kolmogorov quoetient as described in this entry is precisely the T0-reflection. --Kompik 13:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I coined that term in 2012 or so (see wiki:KolmogorovQuotient {why isn't this interwiki link to the WikiWikiWeb working?}, try this link to KolmogorovQuotient) for the computer programming field.  This page, I believe, is some work done within the mathematical domain which will be needed to quantify the concept I proposed there; specifically, I way to isolate programming language tokens, applying a factor based on their topological distance (a seemingly nonsensible concept not developed in the field yet) to evaluate programming language succinctness. Average64 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolmogorov quotient 

message: Can someone knowledgable provide some appropriate (perhaps canonical) examples of spaces which both are and are not T0?
:Er, probably you meant "... both spaces which are, and spaces which are not, T_0".  Any Hausdorff space -- say, the real line -- is T_0; any indiscrete space with more than one point is not.  Maybe you want a more elaborate example?  JadeNB 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples? 

message: Does the second sentence in this paragraph:
Otherwise, x and y are said to be topologically distinguishable. Loosely speaking, this means that the topology on X is capable of distinguishing between x and y.
really add anything?  It seems to be just excess verbiage.  JadeNB 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topologically distinguishable