lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Political representation

message: --99.242.64.74 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

message: Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I have decided to make a couple of significant edits to this article. I am making these edits - most of which will be original contributions - because I believe the article, as it stands, offers an incomplete account of the discourse on political representation. The article is right to say that, in general, political representation is thought to describe the activities of elected representatives in representative democracies; and is discussed in tandem with representative democracy. However, the discourse on political representation extends beyond representative democracy. In fact, more recent theorists of political representation like Andrew Rehfeld have argued that political representation can be and often is undemocratic. I aim to address this shortcoming of the article by de-emphasizing its focus on political representation as discussed in the context of representative democracy and re-orienting the article toward a more general account of the concept of political representation.
I also think the article should be called "Political Representation" because I think it's a more appropriate title since the article is, in fact, about "Political Representation". But I'll save that edit for last, in case the community thinks otherwise.
For a more detailed picture of what I mean to do here, please check out my sandbox for my edits and their justification. Don't hesitate to leave any tips/ criticism you think will be helpful.
HaroldMDub (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive Edit

message: This section could probably use a little work.  The Nunavut example could probably be replaced with a better one - while expanding the riding would in theory present the various problems mentioned, the main point is that the riding contains the entire jurisdiction of Nunavut, and a federal riding would not today be designed to cover multiple jurisdictions. - David Oberst 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Representation by area

message: — Assignment last updated by A.lejla (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective
Talk:Apple ProDOS

message: The WPL+ bit seems a bit of a non-sequitur tacked on at the end like that. Nobody looking for information on WPL+ would think to look in an article on ProDOS. -- Jerry Kindall 12/18/2005 01:22 AM PST
In the "extermal links section" the link "ProDos Company – ProDos Company" points to a software company that is not related to the article, are they taking advantage of the high rank of the wikipedia article in google?
:Yeah, it looks like it's not related; I pulled it. Jerry Kindall 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Unlike Windows or Linux (that I have seen), ProDOS allowed you to move floppies around from drive to drive.  If it couldn't find the volume it was looking for, it asked you to put that disk in.  The equivalent would be for Windows to use paths like "MyDisk:" or Linux a path like "/media/MyDisk".  It is strange that no OS that I know of outside Apple uses this simple idea that debuted in the early 1980's. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique feature of Apple OSes that debuted with either ProDOS or SOS isn't mentioned 

message: Is this real? Apple Pugetsound Program Library Exchange has an announcement for v2.4 of ProDOS 8, with the 30th anniversary of the Apple //gs, and we are nowhere near April 1st. Also, they have a downloadable image:
http://www.callapple.org/uncategorized/announcing-prodos-2-4-for-all-apple-ii-computers/
I was never an Apple 8-bit person but, um... is this valid? Should this trigger a rev of the page? I mean, working state: ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT, latest release, 2.4.0; YESTERDAY. That's... kind of lollertastic and awesome, really. XD
Solarbird (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's real, but unofficial (not from Apple). One of the main features is that it runs on Apple IIs without a 65C02 processor, unlike the final official Apple release.  Also I assume the year mapping in the Thunderclock driver was updated: the Thunderclock does not report the full year, only the day of the week that the year starts on, and there was a mapping table in the OS to convert this to the year that started on that day, said table needing to be updated every few years. 23:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that, while not from Apple, it's written by the original programmer, John Brooks, and thus does deserve to be listed here as the latest version. Also, it seems that it merges both ProDOS 8 (AKA ProDOS 1.x) and ProDOS 16 (AKA ProDOS 2.x) as this one system runs on both 8 and 16 bit Apple IIs. Version 2.4.2 is now the latest and can be downloaded here: https://prodos8.com/releases/prodos-242/ 73.181.232.230 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has a third-party source covered Brooks's continuation of ProDOS? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ProDOS 8 version 2.4? 

message: Version 2.4 came out in 201668.192.236.179 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update
Talk:Rube Foster

message: Foster was once hired by NY Giants manager Jim McGraw to teach pitching secrets, & Christy Mattewson allegedly learned his famous fadeaway from Foster.  Trekphiler 04:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Apple SOS

message: The code name for the Apple /// forms the first letter of the operating system of this article - "Sara."  There are several references available that point to this spelling:
http://www.wap.org/a3/a3library/a3faq.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/reach/435/aiii.htm
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=aIII
http://oldcomputers.net/appleiii.html
http://lowendmac.com/b4mac/appleiii.html
http://lowendmac.com/coventry/06/apple-iii-failure.html
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/apple-iii-lisa-era.html
I've only been able to find a single reference online that calls it "Sarah."
http://applemuseum.bott.org/sections/computers/III.html
Can anyone help with anything more authoritative?
--JustSomeGuyToo (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a Name? 

message: I took a shot at changing the tone of the article from one of theory and conjecture to actual operating principles and technical detail in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD.  I left some of the hyperbole in the "History and Conjecture" section, most of which still needs to be removed.
--JustSomeGuyToo (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being easily found elsewhere is exactly why the information needs to be deleted if it isn't traced back to its original sources — otherwise, it will eventually get grabbed up by someone with lesser standards and become repeated legend, with any errors that might be in it.  All of that needs to killed before it breeds unless it gets citations that are verifiably from reliable sources.  Without that, there is no way to see that it provides factual information rather than fiction that will just pollute later research.  After all, the section even has the word "conjecture" in the heading — sounds like original research rather than reliable sources. --Closeapple (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technically-oriented Update 

message: This entry talks a little too much about David Fradin.  It reads like revisionist history in its attempts to prove the merits and successes of the Apple /// and the heroic role David Fradin had in keeping it alive.  Could really use some neutral fine-tuning. Jimbonator (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the additions are by .  I chopped it down a bit and tagged a some other things that someone may be able to find verifiable third-party reliable sources rather than get deleted soon also.  Even if it's verifiable, it sounds like it's more about the Apple III in general than SOS.  Per WP:PROVEIT, if someone doesn't show backing from a neutral source for any claim, it can be removed at any time. --Closeapple (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Fradin
Talk:Rube Waddell

message: I added "the sousepaw" & 6yr/row based on Ken Burns' "Baseball".  Trekphiler 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added some stuff

message: So, going into 1946 season, what was thought to be Waddell's strikeouts in 1904?  Yes, I see that Bob Feller struck out 348 in 1946, but research then lifted Waddell's 1904 total from ___ to 349. Carlm0404 (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strikeouts
Talk:Dave Hilton Jr.

message: No references, added tag--FloNight 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken out, as there's a single reference.  I've replaced it with more specific requests for citation (such as the two sentences confilcting with each other.) --Sigma 7 05:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This man is a boxing world champion AND a convicted incestuous sex abuser! There are larger articles on much more irrelevant sports figures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judenrat (talk • contribs) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why such small article?
Talk:Ralph DePalma

message: "1911, DePalma won the first Milwaukee Mile Championship Car race. The next week he won his first Indianapolis 500 driving a Simplex."
The 1911 Indy 500 was won by Ray Harroun.  The final result was controversial, as Ralph Mulford filed a protest claiming that he had in fact won, as he claimed to have lapped Harroun when the latter's tire was damaged and he was forced to pit to replace it.  However, Mulford pitted shortly after Harroun for the same reason.  Ralph DaPalma finished 6th in his Simplex, almost 20 minutes (19:54) behind Harroun.  He only won the 500 once, in 1915.  Joel Blanchette 13:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what it says at the Milwaukee Mile official site, but I don't believe it. I will change it. Royalbroil 02:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1911 Indianapolis 500

message: On the youtube website, in my youtube account, I have a video slideshow that I created, of vintage original Ralph Depalma photos that I bought on ebay.   I'd like to add this to the article as an external link.  MS, Dania Fl206.192.35.125 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: EXTERNAL LINKS
Talk:Man track controversy

message: The intro paragraph reads:
:The man track controversy...refers to the alleged discovery of million year-old human footprints...These claims are strongly believed by strict-young earth creationists...
I know that creationists' ideas are based on faith, not logic and reason, but even so, this seems too illogical to me. Young-earth creationists believe the Earth is only some ten millenia old at most—anything on Earth dated at a million years would instantly disprove YEC in its current form (which of course is why even so few creationists are YECs). Perhaps it is the garden-variety creationists who strongly believe in the purported age and identity of these tracks? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. It doesn't make sense. I've fixed it now, but some copy-edit is still needed. See my last edit for the changes made. Gflores Talk 02:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something doesn't make sense
Talk:St. John's-Ravenscourt School

message: I fixed a surprising number of spelling errors, including misspelling kiddell. Seminumerical 05:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All's well that ends well. TDS | talk 02:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling corrections

message: The many edits on October 21, 2015, include a surreptitious deletion of all reference to the 2011 sexual abuse scandal, in which several senior boys were charged with sexual assault with a weapon.  Can anyone give a legitimate reason why this should be buried? Joe Photon (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Abuse Scandal Edits
Talk:Propeller walk

message: I don't buy this description of the effect. It seems to me that under circumstances where there is little forward or backward motion, then the largest influence on a boat is the combined effect of the propellor wash and its action on the rudder. Indeed I am pretty certain that when the propellor is going astern, the effect on the rudder is reversed so that the rudder needs to be turned the opposite direction from what would be expected.--Rjstott 05:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk:.38 Long Colt

message: Am I right the .38LC was a .386, not .357? (If so, the M1911 page needs correcting.) Also, Teddy Roosevelt carried a .38 LC Colt Navy in Cuba (if anyone cares).  Trekphiler 05:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was not a .386. Arthurrh 22:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The .38 Long colt had a diameter of .375. There is no such thing as a modern .38 long colt. There is only .38 special which has the diameter of .358. That is why .38 special can be fired out of a 357 magnum revolver. 2603:8080:AE00:F3A8:8C8E:FB06:45DA:6946 (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullet Diameter

message: Got a 1901 US Army 38 LC pistol.  Can I shoot 38 Special ammunition in this gun?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.218.87 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  38 LC vs. 38 special 

message: The Specifications box on the right says the bullet diameter is .361 inches, but the article text says "In contrast, the .38 Long Colt uses a .357–.358-inch (9.07–9.09 mm) bullet"   Well, which is it?   Captain Packrat (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  .357 or .361? 

message: I also saw the discrepancy regarding whether the dimensions are 0.361-inch or 0.357-inch. According to what I read, the factory-intended bullet diameter was 0.357-inch, while in the same source, the factory barrel dimensions are stated to have a groove diameter of 0.361-inch. The article states that under the intended operating conditions, the designer expected the bullet to swage under pressure from the propellant gases and conform to the larger bore groove dimensions. 
The pertinent URL below was active as of August 13, 2016. 
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-ammunition-ballistics/115221-cartridge-discussion-38-long-colt.html 
Linstrum (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet diameter and bore dimensions are supposedly different from each other as stated
Talk:Freedom Riders

message: — Assignment last updated by FutureTeacher2026 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 121 - U.S. History since 1877

message: Because all participants are referred to as "The Freedom Riders", the timeline section of this article is often confusing. Also, some sections repeat information already stated in previous sections. For instance, the first paragraph of the Birmingham section is just a recap of the Anniston section. This is confusing initially because it sounds like 2 different groups. I think someone with a bit more narrative ability needs to come through and reconcile these issues. RassGroots (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, , there were different groups of Freedom Riders, with some overlap. The initial organizers called off the Rides after the major violence. At that point the Nashville Student Movement, spurred by Diane Nash, took over the Ride and continued it. Your concern about the wording should be followed up on, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing timelines
Talk:AttachmateWRQ

message: Recent edit by 200.76.163.199 is not only bad grammar and spelling, but I'm not sure it's true. Both Attachmate and WRQ were large companies with significant business relationships, although Attachmate's tended to be more global while WRQ's tended to be more domestic. Information about a relationship with "Grupo Inffinix in Latinamerica" (what is that?) is unimportant, I believe, to the content of the article. Unless anyone objects I'm going to undo that edit in the near future, and probably replace it with something more to the effect of the second sentence of my discussion here. Tyrel Haveman 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Notonectidae

message: I think it's obvious the two articles should be merged, but I think Back swimmer should be the target.  Are people really going to search for the scientific name?  Is there a precedent for using scientific names as the title?  NickelShoe 05:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: No, they shouldn't be merged.  13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: NickelShoe, I don't know what your talking about, i searched for backswimmer and notonectidae came up DrakeKobra (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: And here is why we teachers never let anyone cite Wikipedia as a credible source. How long has this article on a major type of insect contained the juvenile sentence that they can "fly wherever they want"? I move to strike it and the preceding sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermoir (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia always welcomes editors but the correct reason for excluding Wikipedia as a citation is that it is, in theory and practice, a secondary source of information. Dger (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph
Talk:Ashgrove, Queensland

message: I used the term "micro-suburb" to describe St Johns Wood as it seems the most fitting. Please change it if you can think of a better term. EmileVictor 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we re-add it without the date information? at least until we know the date? Rimmeraj 10:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of historical photos on Commons but the article needs some contemporary photos that show the characteristics of the suburb. Kerry (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Centre-right politics

message: (Under the heading "Fiscal Centrists and Social Conservatives of the Centre-Right"): "They are thus opposed to both militant communism and reactionary free-market Thatcherism"
This is a non-NPOV statement, as it implies that Communism is "militant" and that "Thatcherism" is "reactionary."  I changed it to "They are thus opposed to both what they see as militant communism and also reactionary free-market Thatcherism" for now. I also changed the value judgment "occupying somewhat of a middle ground in economic policy." to the statement of fact "occupying a middle ground between those two ideologies in economic policy." Wormyguy (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV
Talk:2005 FIFA Club World Championship

message: I've separated this section from FIFA Club World Championship article. I've also added team logos.
I think it's more organized now.
--Mrzero 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

message: On the subject of FIFA and TV replays confirming the goals, it has to be said that one of the goals truly did look like a goal even from a television viewpoint. The text as it is is a bit unclear regarding this. It might be better to say that "FIFA upheld the referees decision" and "television replays suggested that the last disallowed goal may or may not have been out of play" or something to that effect. After that a bit maybe useful to mention the outcome of the tournament - the CNN link suggests that it might just have been better to have the old SA v Europe match as that was the interesting one. - 82.4.1.45 13:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your suggestion about the FIFA decision.  About the tv replays, however, I don't see how this can be relativized.  The three plays, and especially the two offsides, have been replayed a gazillion times, in real time, in slow-motion, with computer-generated imagery to analize the players' positions and with freeze-frame.  I've seen them all.  The replays have confirmed that the refs were right, including in the case of the last offside (maybe they were lucky, but as it turns out they were, indeed, right).  In light of this, there's no "may or may not", it was offside — Benitez and the British press appear to be the only ones who have not had access to those resources.And I agree that a text on the outcome of the tournament, including criticism of the new format, may be interesting, as well as [maybe] a board with the final standings, since right now the information has to be "mined" from the match results boards (not really difficult to do, but also not that practical).  Regards, Redux 14:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIFA and TV replays
Talk:Glycoside

message: This article is hard to read and contains factual inaccuracies. Glycosides are defined as compounds with glycosidic bonds - the "moiety"...which is a terrible, terrible term to spring on a reader in a definition for the public, by the way...can, in fact, be another carbohydrate.
I'm fixing stuff now. 24.29.9.104 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think cyanogenic is the correct term; cyanogenetic is a misnomer for the same thing. However, these compounds do not necessarily have hydrogen cyanide as the aglycone. I fixed it. AxelBoldt 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing for readability

message: hmm, I just added cyanogenic glycosides, but then I found cyanogenic glycosides.  I think these are the same thing, but I don't know which heading should it have (IANA-Chemist).  Maybe someone can clear this up, or leave as is if nothing new is needed.  Smmurphy(Talk) 06:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think cyanogenic is the correct term; cyanogenetic is a misnomer for the same thing. However, these compounds do not necessarily have hydrogen cyanide as the aglycone. I fixed it. AxelBoldt 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cyanogenic or cyanogenetic

message: Typo that needs to be cleared up in the last paragraph on the page:
Cyanogenic glycosides
"In this case, the aglycone is a contains a cyanide group"
66.159.68.20 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyanogenic glycosides

message: In the paragraph :
"In this case, the aglycone is a contains a cyanide group"
The word "cyanide" should be replaced by "nitrile", because these compounds do not contain the cyanide ion (CN-) but the nitrile group (R-CN) instead. These are completely different things, as nitrile compounds being nowhere near as toxic as most cyanide-containing ionic compounds.
Dr.Rezaf 13:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitrilosides

message: Where do the betalains fit into this classification? --EncycloPetey 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Betalain]] 

message: Are these glycosides? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nucleotide sugar]]s?

message: Steroidal glycosides or cardiac glycosides, I need a sitation for the information given, and alseo a link or two for info on medicinal uses for steroidal glycosides.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.255.216 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I think it should be mentioned. Ben-Natan (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glyco=Sugar, and Side=? 

message: — Assignment last updated by ZP19 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 378
Talk:Control-Vision

message: NEMO stands for Never Ever Mention Outside ! -- 68.53.42.122, 06:46, 12 December 2005
I was privy to a 1988 demo of this system while working at Apple (it was in one of the conference rooms at the top of one of the CIty Center buildings). The system was then known as "ISIX" and we were able to play Sewer Shark, Night Trap, etc. There was no sign of a ColecoVision being involved. Ohmantics (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is there even a cite that this was ever called "Control-Vision"?98.209.220.47 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this moved from NEMO? 