lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Cowboy bowline

message: 12 times longer?  On a round loop that's a foot across, that would be something like 40 feet of loose rope!  ("Good thing you followed that rule of thumb, sailor!  The first 35 feet slipped through the knot, but there were still those magical five feet of rope left.")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkcd (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't say circumference of what.  Maybe they mean 12x the circumference of the rope.  For a 10.5mm rope, that's about 3cm circumference, so 40cm of tail, which seems reasonable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.59.254 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tail rule of thumb 

message: I think the article Left-hand bowline describes the same knot with a different slant on it's usefulness.  We should make the Left-hand bowline point here and incorporate its text, but everything needs references first anyway to verify these really are the same knot. Rodfreier (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the merge because I'm pretty sure myself that they're all the same knot, but emboldened especially by the fact that the same ABoK number is listed in both articles. Walrus heart (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[left-hand bowline]] 

message: According to my own experiments cowboy bowline weakens the rope more that the original bowline, but i'm not an authority... so if you find anything related to this issue from a trusted source please include it, because I saw this knot used more often, disregarding this.
Nodurosul (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the jury will never decide on that issue without someone doing serious scientific research. Clifford Ashley, who is cited in the article, provides no reasons for his verdict. --Netizen (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rope strenght 

message: ABoK refers to the Cowboy Bowline as "Left-Hand Bowline".  I think the change to "Left-Handed" (which I have now corrected) was an error that crept in during the merge with the article, correctly titled, "Left-Hand Bowline".  Left or right-handed refers to handedness or chirality in my experience, especially as it pertains to geometric considerations.  Thus, there are right and left-handed Bowlines, both of which are ABoK #1010 (and are mirror images of one another) as well as right and left-handed Cowboy Bowlines, both of which are ABoK #1034.5 (and are also mirror images of one another).  It is unfortunate in my estimation that ABoK used the label "Left-Hand" for the Cowboy Bowline given that there are right and left-handed versions of most knots.  Somewhat amusing is the fact that a left-handed person would not tie the knot as shown, but, instead tie its mirror image.  Thus, the knot shown is the right-handed version of the "Left-Hand Bowline".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.213.241 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-Hand vs. Left-Handed
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Participants

message: I honestly cannot tell if this page is supposed to be in Alphabetical or "Date added" order? Could a sentence be added denoting order? -- IrishDragon 06:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there, in the comments: "Note that the list is ordered alphabetically by name." -Frazzydee|✍ 18:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Format/order

message: Hi everyone. 
After researching the cubit , I saw that a citation was needed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit
with regards to a royal cubit size being indicated in Egyptian hieroglyphs as a forearm.
It may be logical to summise that something like a forearm measurement would be based on that of a Pharaoh (like the English "foot" based on the king's foot at that time), and it's well documented that some of the Pharaohs had distorted features due to a genetic disease, their arms will have been elongated. As I'm 195cm tall, but still of relatively normal proportion and have 50cm forearms/hands combined, it's easy to assume that a person with Marfan's syndrome or a similar genetic disease could have a combined forearm/hand length of around 52cm.   
We must remember that hieroglyphs were written by a very logical, practical people who, for example, had almost no vowels in their early written language as they didn't seem to need them. Any symbols that were made to represent objects were drawn as descriptively as possible. If a symbol shows a forearm and hand, then it will most likely be a forearm and hand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasthopeofhumanity (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cubit origin 

message: It's short for Moire.  I just read it today.  How do we change the entry from Kay to Ray?Carolasi (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mildred's daughter is nicknamed Ray. 

message: I have new information to add to a page. I have been able to update sources but not the content.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaggyAnn (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating a Page
Talk:Stanley Lombardo

message: The article text claiming his tranlsations are designed to be performed orally are partially validated by Lombardo's preface to his translation of the Iliad (), where he talks about how he refined his text through actual performance.  He never says specfically that the result is intended for oral performance, but I feel that's a safe extrapolation.  I don't know to what the paranthesized counterclaim refers, but if it's this review then I think the review has been misrepresented; its quotations come from the same preface, which certainly doesn't contradict itself! ~ Psyno (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation request on "designed for oral performance" needs attention
Talk:Coincidence theory

message: There was am AfD on this that ended in delete, it can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidence theory (second nomination) Mathmo Talk 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on "coincidence theory" wasn't actually about anything.  The concensus was that no such article was possible. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, some of those voting for deletion of the Coincidence article did not seem to understand that it was not just another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. This article has no relationship to the previous article on Coincidence Theory, so why is there a redirect here? My understanding of coincidence theory is that in a very large universe of instances, rare things will be observed. In a billion random trials, unlikely events, say "1 in a million" occurrences, might be seen to occur 1,000 times, simply due to chance. A naive observer might see the 1000 occurrences of the stated rare event, and conclude there was a conspiracy. Perhaps there should be a paragraph to that effect added to the Conspiracy theory article and the redirect deleted. Edison 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a redirect here because of reasons stated in the AfD.  It is a valid term which has relevant hits in the various mathematical sources, completely exclusive of any conspiracy context. There's nothing stopping someone from creating a "Coincidence theory (conspiracies)" article if they desire, though it shouldn't be a recreate of the previous article here.  *Spark* 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Anybody know what the odds are/were that the New York Lottery pick 3 would come up 911 on 9/11/02? not 191 119 but 911
what a co-incidence? and its no theory it happened. There are numerous examples that were hinted at in the artical which may be still cashed by google or answers.com ?
NPOV trolls strike again?
70.35.195.31 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Lottery odds: 1 in 1000 (or possibly 729, if zeros are not allowed).  Not much of a coincidence, really.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 4

message: I propose that these articles be merged, Section 10 on Kyiv doesn't make any sense and Kiev is better presented. The talk pages are merged already on these articles so why aren't the source pages.
88.108.68.252 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the redirect at Kyiv; there wasn't anything worth merging.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:2 cm KwK 30

message: Shouldn't the article mention somewhere that it's a magazine-fed gun, which is fed from either 10 round or 25 round box magazines, side-loaded? This is the kind of thing people wonder about when they read something like this. It ought to at least specify this in the infobox. More detail would be even better; for example, if they use both HE and AP ammo, is it mixed in the magazines? Do they carry separate magazines full of HE and AP, and swap magazines when needed? Do they fire full bursts, or two, or three shot bursts typically?
71.181.87.167 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine fed
Talk:The Man Outside

message: I've finally gotten around to adding information to this page. If there are any innaccuracies, please let me know.
Also, I'm not nearly done, but I'm working as fast as I can. CKnapp 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have act 4 up tomorrow afternoon, and 5 up by the night. Then it should be substantially done. CKnapp 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction

message: I don't know how many people actually read this discussion page, but could someone work on adding a section on techniques? Thanks CKnapp 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literary Techniques

message: Ann Arbor is in Michigan, not Wisconsin. Please make some correction. Varlaam (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann Arbor: University of Wisconsin Press 

message: Hi 2601:CD:280:6DD0:E0A4:14CF:F24D:A531 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi
Talk:3.7 cm KwK 36

message: Hey there, Would this https://www.scribd.com/document/142585863/H-Dv-481-51-Merkblatt-fur-die-Munition-der-3-7-cm-Kampfwagenkanone-25-04-1939 
be something that could be used as a Citation or not? 
Regards, LwO ehT (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible citation
Talk:5 cm KwK 38

message: The section in brackets is completely incorrect. The pak37 was not the towed equivalent of the kwk 38. They were different  calibre guns. The equivalent tank gun for the pak37 was the kwk 37, the predecessor of the kwk 38.
The simplest solution is to simply delete the bracketed section. It is misleading and unnecessary. Felimy (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To make matters worse the reference/footnote [1] is an abuse of referencing. It is totally inappropriate to use a US description of 1943 North African tank battles as a source for a 1938 designed tank gun. This kind of referencing to look academic is nonsense. Felimy (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major error in first paragraph
Talk:5 cm KwK 39

message: The KwK 39 was a tankcannon, therefore the Stielgranate 41 was not used with this gun. Due to its construction (comparable to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_41) this round could only be used with PaKs. 91.221.59.29 (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stiel-Granate 42
Talk:7.5 cm KwK 40

message: I can't find manufacturer data in the article.
Jmosman (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who manufactured the 7.5 cm KwK 40? 

message: The name of the gun that the StuG tanks used contains the letters "StuK". What does this mean? StuG means "Sturmgeschütz" (Assault gun). And in other names the letter "K" often means "Kanone" (cannon). However if StuK means "Sturmkanone" (Assault gun), what is the diference between StuG and StuK?--User71131159 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  StuK
Talk:8.8 cm KwK 43

message: The values given here can't be correct:
Gun  	Ammo  	m/kG	v0/m/s	Ekin/MJ
Kwk36	Pzgr39	10.2	773   	3.05
Kwk36	Pzgr40	7.3 	930   	3.16
Kwk43	Pzgr39	10.2	1000  	5.10
Kwk43	Pzgr40	7.3 	1030  	3.87
Kwk43	Pzgr40	7.3 	(1200)	(5.26)
See? Shot with the KwK36 the APCR round has a slightly (3%) higher KE than
than the AP round, but not so with the KwK43. This can't be since the
propellant charges are the same. I've added a more likely 1200m/s I found on
the net (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/88-mm.asp ) which also
gives 3% more KE. 84.73.129.190 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  v0 of Pzgr 39 vs 40 

message: The picture of the Tiger II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiger-II-La_Gleize.jpg) does not show a 8,8cm kwk43. The barrel of the original 8,8cm was cut off shortly after the tank was left by the germans. After the war a 7,5cm L70 canon of a Panther was bonded onto the remaining part ofthe 8,8cm kwk43.
http://www.ss501panzer.com/213_restoration.htm
I edited in the Tiger II picture of the german Tiger II articel with shows a real KwK43.
79.207.199.59 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The La Gleize Tiger II picture 

message: Regarding the following reverted addition: 
:
Firstly; this shouldn't be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Second; "powerful" is a meaningless WP:PEACOCK term and shouldn't be used. Third; the wording is clumsy and illogical. Please follow WP:BRD - you have made your Bold edit, it has been Reverted - now you need to Discuss and gain consensus. (Hohum @) 13:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 56 of the Google preview version of Tiger I and Tiger II is talking about the 12.8 cm Pak 44 and it is that which the author describes as the most powerful anti-tank gun on an AFV, not the 8.8. I checked the pages either side just to be sure the ebook version was differently numbered. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most powerful gun" 

message: As discussed in Talk:8.8 cm KwK 36, the second column cannot be real combat accuracy. Also, JENTZ's book is more reliable than fprado.com, which in turn actually quotes JENTZ making the whole citation irrelevant. Why cite the site when you can cite JENTZ directly? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed in Talk:8.8 cm KwK 36, I'll change the misleading Practice/Combat table column names with 1 and 2 for the Kwk 43 as well. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy details
Talk:Mario Almada (actor)

message: Ok, I just began this article, it is just a stub but I'll keep working on it. I have a question regarding the filmography: should the titles be left in the Spanish original, translated into English or should I add the English translation between parenthesis? I got some information from the Spanish Wikipedia article, and I'll add more data along with more sources later.eJ 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done, a century later In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning this Article
Talk:3.7 cm Flak 18/36/37

message: Please delete the section 3.7cm Flak M42U as, this weapon has nothing in common with the group of 3.7 cm Flak 18/36/37/43, nor with the 3.7 cm SK C/30.
Full informations here:  (in German)
http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic.php?p=203990#203990
and
(with some minor corrections)
http://www.forum-der-wehrmacht.de/index.php/Thread/40682-3-7-cm-Flak-M-42-L-69/?postID=424084#post424084
Mìchean (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello .  Wikipedia article content needs to be based off of reliable, independent sources such as newspapers, magazines, or (most likely for this article) books.  Forums like the two you've given above are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and cannot be used to source content.  If you find a book or similar source that talks about how the two guns are not related, that could be reason to change the content of the article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Source:
 Karl R. Pawlas. Waffen-Revue. Nr. 106 3. Quartal 1997
 Karl R. Pawlas. Waffen-Revue. Nr. 107 4. Quartal 1997.
 Journal-Verlag Schwend GmbH.
 Schwäbisch Hall.
 1997.
 ISBN 4-390505-210001-x.
Hope this helps. Mìchean (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Created separate article. Flak M42 seemed shoehorned into article anyway. Specs and use are different.Pennsy22 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  please delete  Section 3.7cm Flak M42U
Talk:10.5 cm FlaK 38

message: Article reassessed and graded as stub class.      --dashiellx (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article reassessed and graded as "Start" class, based on current "WP MilHist" Assessment criteria. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The article is named 10.5 cm Flak 38 however in the intro paragraph the first mention is for the 10.5 cm SK C/33, which is a naval gun. Later both guns are mentioned as a related development, but current wording is quite confusing. I'll rephrase the intro paragraph along the lines of the similar article in the German Wikipedia which is more complete anyway. I'll also expand this article using the German one as a basis. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between similar guns? 

message: I'm trying to improve this article to "C-class", by adding relevant content, images, and additional sources / bibliography. Most of the content I'll add in the short term will be the same article in other Wikipedias. Any help, especially with citations to existing sources, will be greatly appreciated. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement proposal 

message: Did you ever give a serious consideration to changing the page name to reflect the German orthography? The German term is Flak (and Pak, btw), no matter how often you may have read FlaK (or PaK). Wschroedter (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flak rather than FlaK
Talk:First National Bank Building (Ann Arbor, Michigan)

message: The sign above the entrance, on the historical marker and on the clock call the building the 'First National Building' without 'Bank' being in the name. I don't know how to change the title of an article or if doing so might create problems, but it would appear the title of the article and references to the building in the text have an incorrect name. Dwight Burdette 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name of building 

message: the art deco designation from this building unless someone comes up with a reason to keep it.  I see the building as being Romanesque Revival. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRHP  http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/MI/washtenaw/state.html  lists the building as "Romanesque", so I am just going to change it to RR.  Carptrash (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am inclined to remove
Talk:T-theory

message: This article needs to take a more broad view of what T-theory is, what kinds of problems it can solve, what its results and open problems are. As it stands now, it looks too much like another article about the tight span — it describes the tight span and its properties, and doesn't really describe anything other than the tight span. Which, if it continues to look that way, will encourage people to think it should just be merged into tight span instead of a separate article. —David Eppstein 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up on this, would it be correct to say something like "T-theory encompasses a broad collection of mathematical tools — R-trees, ultrametrics, injective metric spaces, nonexpansive mappings, the tight span, tropical geometry and tropical convexity, and Δ-hyperbolic spaces — for reasoning about the metric geometry of trees and treelike spaces"? Which of these concepts actually belongs to T-theory? —David Eppstein 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Could someone please verify that this method is used for phylogenetics?  -Safay 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the really bad title and see  I just added this to the tight span article. —David Eppstein 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phylogenetic Applications

message: : classified six point metrics using T-theory
Does this mean (1) six how many "point metrics" they classified, or (2) each of the things subject to classification was a "six-point metric"?  If the latter, I think a hyphen should be used.  Could there be a more efficient way to disambiguate? Michael Hardy 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see: The authors did use a hyphen, but whoever wrote this Wikipedia comment omitted it. Michael Hardy 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguity 

message: What is "T"?
Thatsme314 (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In Dress et al 1996, T-theory is "the theory of trees, injective envelopes of metric spaces, and all of the areas that are connected with these topics", and T is an operator used as notation for the tight span. One might guess at this from which words they were intending T to stand for (probably not "the", "that", "these", or "topics", but that still leaves more than one possibility) but we can't base our article on guesswork. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology
Talk:Charterhouse

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 18:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 April 2023
Talk:RefWorks

message: RefWorks is a legitimate instance of the category of citation management software. I posted a very skeletal page that should have been tagged as a 'stub' so that suffered 'speedy deletion.'
I'm new to wiki (at least I registered) so I need to do a better job formatting the page to avoid speedy deletion.
I have posted a new page formatted to indicate it is a software-stub. 
--Birdbrainscan 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting the page 

message: I'm going to revert the last change which simply put the entire article in quotation marks. Birdbrainscan 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting strange edit 

message: OK, I will admit that I am a fan of RefWorks and felt that the article in its current state does hardly provide sufficient information to do this tool justice, so I added information on a key new component (Write-N-Cite III) and the new ability to attach files to references. This made someone threaten deletion, which I find unjust, but since I am not "big enough" of a user I just deleted all I had added, except for one essential line about full-text linking. As it isn't an inherit feature of RefWorks, but one that is lent to RefWorks by adding an institutional OpenURL resolver.
So anyhow, I think it should be permissible to add details on features of a software, not because it is promotion, but because it describes the product more appropriately. Especially if those additions are fair and balanced and point out limitations that the normal marketing literature of a corporation would not include. I had made sure to include those.
Otzberg 08:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted all I had added 

message: I made the 19:40, 28 August 2011 edit adding a note about the 'repatriation' of RefWorks servers to Canada. AndrewClement (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian 'repatriation' of RefWorks