lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Microscope slide

message: Hello,  I changed the standard thickness from 1.2mm to 1.0mm.  It is my assumption (at least in my line of work with Inverted Optical Microscopes) that the default thickness of a microscope slide is 1.0mm.  Please correct and explain if I'm wrong. Pope 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard thickness 

message: Quick question, are they manufactured like float glass? I would presume so. Samlaw (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacture 

message: what do u mean by mounting will u please explain --Special:Contributions/124.123.242.181
*It is explained in the lead section: 
::Typically the object is placed or secured ("mounted") on the slide, and then both are inserted together in the microscope for viewing.
:"Mount" in this case has the roughly same sense as in "to mount a portrait in a picture frame".   All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "mounting" mean? 

message: I feel it should be pointed out that a cover slip is absolutely necessary with a microscope objective lens of 40x (NA 0.65) or greater power. All such objective lenses are optically designed for viewing through a glass cover slip of 0.17mm thickness. Failure to use a cover slip results in optical distortion of the image. An exception exists for a particular class of objective lenses that are labeled for use with no cover glass, typically having "NCG" engraved in the barrel of the lens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.123.183 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the necessity of cover slips 

message: Small page not really expandable - already mentioned on target page where would be better presented Iztwoz (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cover slip]]
Talk:Eloria noyesi

message: "The government of Colombia has proposed a plan to release large numbers of these moths to destroy the coca crops in their country" Any sources? As this seems a bit ridiculous! Thanks. 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the section "External links", there is a link to an article on MSNBC about the proposal. Nohat 19:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Flag of Wisconsin

message: I removed the reference to the NAVA survey, which has been added back twice. The problem with the NAVA survey is that it is neither a reliable primary nor secondary source. The survey is not a reliable primary source for the reasons I have explained: it was an unsampled, unverified poll. Period. NAVA's own material shows this. Opinion polls must have a representative sample to be in the universe of reliable evidence of public opinion. Any secondary material NAVA published that derives from the unverified primary material is unreliable as well. The reference violates Wikipedia's own policies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepreble (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of NAVA Survey
Talk:Paul Smith (English singer)

message: does someone know his date of birth?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.167.81 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anyone know where he was an art teacher at? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theuserformerlyknownasboromadloon (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art Teacher 

message: About losing his red book is a dead link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theuserformerlyknownasboromadloon (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NME Link 

message: there was no official announcement and he still writes the blog for the myspace so is this information correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinyhappypeople123 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  when and why did he leave the band? 

message: There's a merge flag on the article but no one seems to be discussing it. Now that he has a solo career I think its definitely applicable that he gets his own article, not to mention all the other information that wouldn't really fit into the Maximo Park entry. Unless someone disagrees the merge tag should be removed. M1ke (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion on merge
Talk:Sir John Gell, 1st Baronet

message: Is this (or his son) the same John Gell after which the Via Gellia near Cromford is named?? Linuxlad 19:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: sorry no inline refs so cannot be a B. Victuallers 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  assess
Talk:Tarjan's off-line lowest common ancestors algorithm

message: It would be great if someone added a paragraph about the analysis, or at least about the complexity... 85.218.28.6 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: The algorithm itself is not invented by Tarjan, but rather by Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman (see Tarjan - Efficiency of a Good But Not Linear Set Union Algorithm, JACM Volume 22 ,  Issue 2  (April 1975), Pages: 215 - 225). So this must be a mistake in Cormen at al. I believe this article must be renamed or removed. -- Andrew Stankevich
:Lots of mathematical results are named after the wrong person. That doesn't make the results incorrect, and doesn't even mean they should be renamed. We are not here to correct the scientific nomenclature but to report on it. But, the earlier invention should be described in the article. —David Eppstein 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventors

message: Why is it called least common ancestor? I mean "least common" suggests "non common", and so the root (being an ancestor of every node) would be the answer to all queries.  Devika.shaumslager (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The terminology is related to tree partial orders. If you are given a rooted tree T with root r it induces a partial order on its vertices where u <= v iff v lies on the unique path from r to u. In this order the "least upper bound" of two elements corresponds to their "least common ancestor".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.218.54 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Least

message: Request for an animation illustrating the algorithm (i.e., showing the state transitions and how the algorithm produces them).  (Yes, I know that Wikipedia is a DIY site, but I have nowhere near the level of expertise necessary to fulfill my own request in less than exponential time.)   Thanks!OlyDLG (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Animation
Talk:17th Street Canal

message: when exactly did the breach occur? <unsigned>
Is it possible for someone more versed on the subject to explain how the lack of proper constuction affects the Canal? Frenzberrie 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why does Bucktown, LA redirect here? Bucktown is mentioned in this article, but it predates the canal and has a significance other than being next to the canal. Ben (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bucktown

message: I removed the following because it was a copy/past with a month and year inserted. If someone else wishes to look at it that is fine otherwise I will look into the information--relevance--and the reference later:
The Army Corps of Engineers' district commander in New Orleans in October 2010 approved an environmental document Thursday that green lights the agency's plan to shore up faulty floodwalls and levees on the 17th Street Canal.Corps of Engineers plan to remediate New Orleans canals moves ahead | NOLA.com- Retrieved 2013-04-20. Otr500 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info and ref removal 
Talk:British Rail Class 201

message: What is a DEMU? Doidimais Brasil 19:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC).
A DEMU is a diesel-electric multiple unit - a non-locomotive-huled, self=propelled train powered by a diesel engine with electric transmission, which can be coupled to others of the same or similar type,the whole coupled formation being controlled by one crew in one of the coupled units. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Faraizi movement

message: According to the Nuttall Encyclopedia, "a Mohammedan sect formed in 1827, and met with chiefly in Eastern Bengal; they discard tradition, and accept the Korân as their sole guide in religious and spiritual concerns, in this respect differing from the Sunnites, with whom they have much else in common; although of a purer morality than the main body of Mohammedans, they are narrow and intolerant."
OK, I can't find any confirmation that is is actually a sect proper, outside of Sunni. The Nuttall article sounded, initially, like it meant they rejected the hadith, but everything I can find says they were opposed to bidah. So really, it sounds very similar to the Wahabi movement which is definitely within Sunni bounds. It seems Nuttall probably just goofed, but I'd like to be sure. --Tydaj 19:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Faraizi movement (Bengali: ফরায়েজি আন্দোলন, romanized: fôrayeji andolon) was a movement led by Haji Shariatullah in Eastern Bengal to give up un-Islamic practices and act upon their duties as Muslims (farāʾiḍ).[1] Founded in 1818, the movement protected the rights of tenants to a great extent. 2400:ADC1:151:4A00:8938:1307:9A89:C21D (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farazi movement
Talk:Servatius of Tongeren

message: I have thoroughly recast this article, which formerly marginally infringed the copyright of Livius.org, which I've added among new references. Does anyone want to reinstate any of the material I have dropped (not like the Latin derivation mistaking Servatius (cf Servius Tullius) with Salvatius I hope or like "It was not very usual to transfer the capital of a diocese, and we do not know why this happened.") I also deleted "The question whether Van Veldeke's story is historically correct is hardly relevant, because the answer does not change the fact that in Maastricht sixteen centuries ago, the foundation was laid for the church as we know it today and to which we devote the same attention and care as the many generations have done before us." Let us keep church history, archaeology and hagiographic legend distinct enough not to resort to such special pleading. --Wetman 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recasting

message: The oldest source on Servatius, Gregory of Tours states that Servatius dies as Attila enter's Gaul and sieges Metz. This happened in 451. However late clerical sources states that Servatius died in the late 4th century. So there is a major and clear dispute between the sources. As far as I know historians distrust the works of Jocund and Van Veldeke because of this.
Whatever the thruth may be I think this problem should be adressed in the article. johanthon 09:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gregory's remarks on "Aravatius" are nothing to base a date on. --Wetman 07:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and Timeline
Talk:Battle of the Yellow Sea

message: What's the source of russian and japaneese casualities in the battle? Russian sources talks about 67 killed and 101 wounded only (См. с. 23). Please, explain your figures, otherwise I will have to change 'em. 
Manchjurshi
The article conflicts itself on the issue of Russian casualties. Once it says over 300 and once less than 200. I had never heard of the battle before and have no idea where to find the true figures, so could somebody better versed in the R-J war please fix this? Zephyrus67 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The current map is pretty useless.  At minimum, a map should show Port Arthur and Vladivostok, and probably the location of the battle, too.
Anklefear (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map
Talk:Battle of Sandepu

message: This article really needs a map, locating the area of the battle.--174.34.41.239 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 
Talk:Battle of Mukden

message: Isn't there a way to make the text appear alongside the graphics instead of above and below them creating so much white space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.125.24 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, there is, expanding it. I tagged it. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: "Mukden would be the largest land battle ever fought, up to WWI."
According to all statistics I've seen Leipzig in 1813 was larger. The statistics for it on this site give a figure of 191,000 French troops and 330,000 Allied troops - 521,000 all told. Stephen Pope's Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars cites initial French forces of 177,000 with 14,000 reinforcements - supporting the 191,000 figure on Wikipedia. Pope suggests the Allied forces in the area of Leipzig amounted to 240,000 under Schwarzenberg, 54,000 under Blucher and 80,000 under Bernadotte for a grand total of 374,000 Allied troops. This gives a total of 565,000 troops at Leipzig. Either way it was a significantly larger than Mukden, which the figures cited here indicate involved 498,300 men. Also given the total numbers in armies involved in the Taiping Rebellion in the 1850s and 60s it seems likely that there may well have been a larger battle during that war, though accurate statistics are difficult to obtain. At any rate, I shall remove the above line and if anyone finds statistics that contradicts the ones cited in the article for the numbers in this battle, then please restore the line in question, though provide a citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.184.103 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current (as of this writing) numbers of a total of 860,000 total.  I don't know if would 're'-qualify for that distinction of largest. It would need a citation for sure if its to be said the largest pre-WWI land battle. --Xiahou 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the info in an uncontroversial form. All things considered, it was certainly among the 5 largest, if not among the 2 largest documented. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest Land Battle?

message: In 1864, third Battle of Nanking, had around 900,000 combatants TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was not the largest battle fought before WW1
Talk:Battle of Liaoyang

message: Were did the author get a figure of 245,000 for total Russian troops at Liaoyang? This figure is misleading. Kurapatkin did not have any more than 140,000 in the field for this battle. It's possible that total Russian forces in the Far East, at that time, were 245,000, but only a fraction of them were present at Liaoyang. Maybe the article should be edited?
Kenmore (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Russian troops at Liaoyong were not 245,000 

message: There are three different casualty figures for the Japanese troops which don't agree:
* 22,922 killed, wounded or missing - Infobox
* 24,140 - "Official report": 5,537 killed + 18,603 wounded - Infobox
* 23,615 - "killed, wounded or captured" - text of the article
There's no mention of "missing", so the 2nd and 3rd numbers could be higher; and no mention of "captured", so I suppose the first could be higher. If someone has the sources, the article could benefit from an explanation of discrepancies or at least a referenced figure.Boneyard90 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Casualty Figures conflicted
Talk:Battle off Ulsan

message: I suppose the the title should be Battle of Ulsan with one f. --91.64.179.230 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: What are the differences betfeen "Order of battle" and "Russian point of view"? And whose point of view we have in the order of battle? It should be combined under one Title possibly with some authorised remarks. --VetMax (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of views

message: ..."during the Russian turn" - ummm, what Russian turn? It appears a portion of the narrative is missing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing? 

message: I don't see why we keep this simple grammatical mistake. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, someone explained why the title has two "f"s. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 00:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the article called "Battle off Ulsan" and not "Battle of Ulsan"? 

message: Throughout the article, the battle is referred as the Battle of Ulsan even though the article is titled as 'off Ulsan'. Bykim2012 (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't 'of Ulsan' be changed to 'off Ulsan'?
Talk:Open problem

message: On 2005/9/11 this was seen in the article:
'Unfortunately, these problems were solved by faculty members, not by graduate students.'
Implying what? Faculty shouldn't have to do any work :)? Or is the intent to say that no graduate students were harmed/involved (in reference to common expression "no animals were harmed in the production of XYZ") in the solution?
http://laplace.compbio.ucsf.edu/~jchodera/pubs/pdf/protein-folding-problem.pdf << this Link is not working   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.67.163 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-8 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: Apart from science and maths, is philosophy considered to study open problems too? --Aeternus (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't all philosophical questions open problems? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy 

message: I propose to merge Lists_of_unsolved_problems with Open_problem. I think that the lists can easily be given as a section of the main article, and the main article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the lists will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Jamgoodman (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[Lists_of_unsolved_problems]] with [[Open_problem]]
Talk:Pekanbaru

message: How deep is the river Siak
dunno. too many urban myth saying 'it's an abyss' or sumthing like that. one thing for sure, the river is deep enough for large ships to enter.Boshiaki 10:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

message: I think the city area is not accurate/wrong. How could this city be larger than Medan and almost as larger as Jakarta? this does not make sense. 155.69.2.146 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.pekanbaru.go.id/wilayah-geografis/ it's the truth. Ald™ ▀Ous™ 23:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: City area

message: There's no mention of the Gasib Kingdom here, which I think there should be. I'm fairly sure the Sultanate of Siak didn't exist in 1605 - at least, not under that name, and not as a sultanate - but my Bahasa Indonesia isn't good enough to read the sources. AdventurousMe (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: It looks like Santa is heading your alls way right now it looks like on Norad right now you know I thank. 2600:1700:6CB4:A200:78EC:E0F0:ADAF:B299 (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa
Talk:Brushed metal

message: I've added a suggestion that this article be split into two - Brushed Metal and Brushed Metal (Interface).  They are two different concepts - brushed metal is the effect of abrading metal mentioned in the first half of the article, the brushed metal (interface) is a graphical user interface which seeks to resemble actual brushed metal, which is mentioned as the second part of the article.  What do you think? FatDaks 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I only just came across the article now, but was surprised to find both together. Before I clicked on the link (for the interface) I had to double check if it just said brushed metal or brush metal (interface) as I wasn't expecting the interface to be more important that the actual physical technique. Mehmet Karatay 09:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also agree, provided the default actually involves metal and has a disambiguation at the top to the interface page.  171.71.37.103 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also agree. Xyzyxx 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree too. It seems kind of odd to have an article like this. 71.241.98.175 19:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, per cons., I'm splitting, and doing a very rough split of the content. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 
Talk:Battle of Rossbach

message: this seems a well written page, and I was wondering wether or not an anon. contemporary popular rhyme about the battle can be added.  I found the rhyme in the book History in Quotations by M.J. Cohen and John Major (on page 471) it goes as follows:
And our great king Frederick comes,
and slaps his woollen breeches.
Off sprints the Kaiser's army then,
E'en faster than the Frenchies.
--Jadger 03:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: possible addition

message: I'm having some difficulty with the exact sequence of events in the third paragraph of the "Terrain and maneuver" section.  I've copied and pasted the problematic section below:
 On 30 October, the King led the army out of Leipzig, toward Lützen, with Colonel Johann von Mayr ... The next day, Frederick moved out of Lützen at 3:00 pm ... When Mayr appeared at about 8:00 a.m. on the 31st, followed by the King and the rest of his army, the French were completely surprised.
If Frederick leaves Leipzig on the 30th, then he would leave Lutzen at 3:00 pm on the 31st ("the next day"). Yet Mayr arrives at Weissenfels about 8:00 am that same day, followed by the King, surprising the French. The King cannot arrive less than 7 hours after Mayr, and yet the implication seems to be that it was much more immediate... Am I missing something?  Could this confusion be a result of translation? Wendigo Lake (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrain and maneuver - chronology
Talk:Battle of Minorca (1756)

message: In backround, it says that 10 ships of the line were sent to relieve Minorca, but in the actual battle, 12 ships of line are refered to. Is this a misprint?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.158.20 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ships of the line

message: I find the article nice, but heavily balanced towards a "Britain always wins" stance. To sum it up in a methaphor, the Brits were left full of blood lying in the dirt, but the fight was inconclusive, because the French left first... Again, the British fleet took so much damage that it could not continue the fight and therefore retreated to their main operations base. I would call this a French victory by all accounts. Regards141.83.61.131 (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: British "victories"

message: Origin of mayonnaise as result of this battle: https://twitter.com/adam_tooze/status/1307660781991854081 Shtove (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahonnaise
Talk:Battle of Liegnitz (1760)

message: I changed the coordinates to the position where the Prussian infantry routed von Laudon's line in the early hours of 15 August 1760.
Before, the coordinates pointed to the location of the Battle of Leuthen in 1757.
Um, the loss of 5000 in a half hour occurred at the battle of Torgau, not Leuthen. This page needs a heavy edit. 71.222.119.5 (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates of the battle