lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Siege of Kerak

message: Concise wikified article with all the important facts included compared with a block of text concerned mainly with off-topic information? Im quite sure my edit was an improvement. cheerful regards --Tefalstar 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was off-topic? Adam Bishop 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought it was all relevant context to the event; well, except the story about the wedding, which is just a funny anecdote, but still part of the story. Adam Bishop 01:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit
Talk:Mamotte Shugogetten

message: If anyone makes a German article, it should be as "Shao, die Mondfee" WhisperToMe 04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German title

message: I'm having trouble finding the correct english name. It's either Guardian Angel Getten or Protect Me Shugogetten. Don't know if the article should be moved to the western name either. - Squilibob 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: English title
Talk:Hosho (instrument)

message: Renamed page to Hosho (instrument) and removed link to the aircraft carrier complete article, started new disambugaion page as Hosho Xaosflux 04:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Typically we put hota (Canna indica) seeds inside them."
Who is "we" referring to exactly? The article should not make a personal reference like that. Gchick (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 1st Person plural 

message: indigenous ceremonial tools 102.128.76.110 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  history
Talk:Battle of Grumentum

message: In copyediting this excessively woolly article (which to date had been based on a single source), I find that it comprises extensive "background" content dealing with the years 216-213 BC, whereas the relevant battle, as mentioned only in the lede, took place in 207 BC. Thus I would say more work is needed not only to cover the actual subject but also to prune irrelevancy from the "background" section. (Or possibly hive most of that detail off to a separate linked article.) Also, the infobox map is unhelpful—it locates the Metaurus, but not Grumentum which I understand is hundreds of kilometres south of Metaurus. I am currently not up to fixing these problems. However, I have at least provided a web ref link to a translation of Livy's account, which can be followed by those wanting to know. Bjenks (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is incomplete
Talk:Battle of Cheriton

message: I'm curious that the infobox location is given as 'near Alresford' rather than 'near Cheriton'. According to the OS map it was at , nearer Cheriton than Alresford, hence (presumably) the name of the battle. Does this simply reflect a lack of a Cheriton, Hampshire article at the time of creation of this article, or have I missed something? Pterre (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have not missed anything, I couldn't find any link to Cheriton when I created the article. HLGallon (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, cheers, I have amended it. Pterre (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: The Battle of Cheriton: the analysis of artefacts from an English Civil War Battlefield
©Geni (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source
Talk:Battle of Adys

message: Did a cheeky little post-furlough, drive-by ce; auto ed, cite scan, dupe wiki search, rm ref = harv as it's now redundant in the template structure, tidied the odd typo and grammatical solecism. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Seeing as Regulus became consul in 256 BCE, and his consulship was prorogued into 255 after the battle of Adys, which was the culmination of his winter fighting in north Africa, then surely the battle was in late 256 / early 255, not late 255.
Furthermore, his downfall to Xanthippus was in Spring of 255 BCE, according the wikipedia article about the battle of the Bagradas river, as well as the JSTOR article on the downfall of Regulus. I'm happy to be corrected if I've got the wrong end of the stick! Awoogamuffin (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Awoogamuffin, you have a firm grip on the entirely correct end of the stick. What a stupid error - many thanks for picking it up. All, I hope, now sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible date confusion
Talk:Princess Ozma

message: I thought Ozma was only half fairy. Booger-mike (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you have a reliable source for that, feel free to change the article. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

text: As a user-generated/edited site, wikis are not a reliable source.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozma's species 

message: Perhaps a note about the use of this name for an album title, cover art also appears to depict her. 2600:8807:26AB:C800:A40F:62C4:A1D:BBCE (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melvins album Ozma
Talk:Ohio State Route 545

message: I just want to say that John Simpson made a mistake on the southern terminus of Ohio 545, it has route 42 on there. It should be route 39 instead of U.S. 42, because Ohio 545 meets up with Ohio 39 in Mansfield, Ohio, as its southern terminus, because it proves it on the maps of 2005, on Mappoint, it shows that Ohio 545 runs from Ohio 39 in Mansfield to U.S. 250 in Savannah.---JeffreyAllen1975 20:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted.  Mr. Simpson's pages are not 100% accurate; nor have they been updated since their creation in the late 1990s.  Unfortunately, as far as I know, he is not working on these pages any more, but we are lucky to have them as a resource, nonethless — Homefryes Say•Do 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an image to let everybody know that we are being truthful about the southern terminus of Ohio 545. The southern terminus of Ohio 545 is at Ohio 39 in Mansfield.--OHWiki 03:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I just want to note on Ohio 545's southern most point?
Talk:Spinner

message: This page was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. I deleted the following terms because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (especially for rather obscure not-wiki-search-worthy phrases) or because there was no further mention of them in the linked-to articles.
* a term for a mobile phone user, identified by 02 plc, who buys a new pre-paid handset, uses the inclusive credit and once this is used up disposes of the phone/ sim
* a dancer, spinning in almost constant motion, commonly to the left and right stage of a Grateful Dead concert.  The practice was made famous by the Infamous Iowan Jeanette Rosen.
* Christian "Spinner" Lassem, the creator of Planetarion and ManagerLeague
I also trimmed the description for spinner.com. Original description if someone wants to make a new page:
* spinner.com , a music blog owned by AOL LLC.  Previously a free high-quality Internet Radio service that originated at thedj.com.  Acquired by America Online for exclusive use within the pay AOL service (to the disappointment of many Spinner users).  Now freely available again to everybody through the AOL portal.
– sgeureka t•c 13:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: She mentions a "spinner" in the beginning of Northanger Abbey; it appears to be an alternate name for a spinnet: "she was very fond of tickling the keys of the old forlorn spinner..."
Geneven (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Austen 

message: Petite woman, who theoretically can be spinned during intercourse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang: Spinner
Talk:Jack Angel

message: I just saw something about this man in the spontaneous human combustion article.  He apparently survived it.  Can anyone shed more light on this, or maybe add a link to a page that does? --Idont Havaname 05:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the wrong Jack Angel.  See Jack Angel (suspected spontaneous human combustion victim). I've fixed the link from the SHC article. Averisk 12:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Spontaneous human combustion]]?

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article and/or finding more information/references. -- Psychless 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Please change
:they remained married until they divorced in 1980
to
:they remained married until their divorce in 1980
71.121.143.77 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request: they remained married until they divorced
Talk:Warehouse (nightclub)

message: can any confirm whether the club was called "The Warehouse" or just "Warehouse"? --MilkMiruku 05:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: Which is correct in the article, the street address (206 South Jefferson) or the Coordinates (41°53′07″N 87°38′49″W, which correspond to the 700 block of West Lake Street)?--Theodore Kloba (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The building at the given street address matches to old photos of the club, so the coordinates must be wrong. I'll try to change that.--Kernpanik (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Kernpanik (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: I know that recently Warehouse reached official Chicago landmark status by new mayor Brandon Johnson, (went on a trip recently) protecting its existence.
This might be a worthy addition to add?
The Warehouse given Chicago landmark status – NBC Chicago
The Warehouse, Birthplace of House Music in Chicago, Is Now a Historic Landmark | Pitchfork
SDRWIKI (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the article to include the Chicago landmark status. I will also add an infobox soon, as we have infoboxes on every article for Chicago landmarks. IntegrityPen (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  landmark - possible new section?
Talk:Battle of Juncal

message: In William Brown (admiral), War With Brazil:
...and at the hard-fought Battle of Juncal (February 24, 1827), with seven ships and eight 1-gun launches he destroyed the entire opposing Brazilian squadron of seventeen ships and took its commander prisoner.
(Sounds as though he was at a disadvantage since the opposing forces are not enumerated as to type)
But in this article:
The two squadrons were initially of roughly equal strength, but because...
Leonard G. (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies? 
Talk:Battle of Adrianople (324)

message: 125,000 and 150,000. I'm not sure that they could gather that much people. With respect, Deliogul 17:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers are unrealistic 

message: There seems to be something badly wrong here.  The link to "Stade" shows it to be something between 150-200m.  Thus 200 stades would be 30 - 50 km.  
It is also rather pointless to include a distance in units which almost no-one knows.  I suggest that just the distance in m (or km) be used.  If you really think it is useful to include "stades" then put that distance in brackets.
Baska436 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of battle line
Talk:Battle of Verona (402)

message: Why isn't this article called the Battle of Verona [402]? There are 2 other Battles of Verona.Shedinja500 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the title 

message: * Battle of Verona should redirect to the disambiguation, or to the Battle of Verona (312) -- the latter being more historically important. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I feel that this article may rely a little too much on Gibbon as a source. Many contemporary scholars disagree with important elements of Gibbon's analysis of these events -- for instance, contemporary scholars generally agree that King Alaric's intention was not to capture Rome, but to intimidate Emperor Honorius into giving him and his people the right to land in Gaul [Hannibal and Alaric in the Later Poems of Claudian, Michael Dewar, p. 366]. If we could incorporate a wider body of scholarly research into this work I feel that this would strengthen the article. 
NoahKidd1478 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Battle of the Eurymedon (190 BC)

message: B class. Catlemur: I recently reviewed the article Battle of Myonessus and I noticed that the entire Background section, the first two paragraphs of the Prelude section, and the last paragraph of the Aftermath section of the two articles (Battles of Myonessus and Eurymedon) are word-for-word identical. While it may be important for each article to relate the general history of this conflict in order for readers to understand the context, it is tedious to read the same word-for-word description in more than one article. The Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC) article also repeats the Background section word-for-word, but it is a much better article because it also provides a unique narrative of events in the sections after the Background. There are times where a certain amount of word-for-word copy may be acceptable (within the same class of warships, for example). I am OK with this for B class, but would not like to see this for GA class. We can discuss if you want. Djmaschek (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the contradiction. As for the word for word repetition I don't mind replacing it. I just don't know what should I focus on. Should I provide details about what happened on other fronts immediately before the battle? An example would be providing details of the Seleucid invasion of Pergamon in an article about a naval battle.--Catlemur (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clearing up the contradiction. I don't think there's a guideline about word-for-word copy from another article, so it may be OK. But I personally don't like to see it for reasons I gave above. I am sometimes in a situation where I need to "borrow" a paragraph from another article. I usually edit it so it says the same thing in different words. Djmaschek (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: B class review - word-for-word copy
Talk:Battle of Placentia (271)

message: Pat Southern confirms (The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, p.209) that Juthungi were merged to Alamanni towards the end of the 3rd century. Therefore this invasion (and the subsequent battles at Fano and Pavia could not be considered a part of the Alamannic wars. A. Watson and D.S.Potter make no mention of Alamanni as well. therefore, I removed all references to Alamanni, in the articles and templates related to this invasion.--Dipa1965 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Juthungi instead of Alamanni

message: Myself not being a native english speaker, I am asking for this due to my attempts in paraphrasing the available secondary sources. Any help will be appreciated.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-editing needed
Talk:Simon Gipson

message: Hey harro, before you decide to just blindly redirect pages, perhaps you should stop blowing your own horn and read the damn papers once in awhile, or perhaps even check out the lovely references they have going here and see how popular Simons opinion is with the press :P
*This article has been listed for deletion. Citing past instances of principal articles being deleted or redirected, I point to J.T. Vallance and Robert Knight. Harro5 06:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't think it goes along with Wikipedia policy to post a series of extracts from copyrighted works written by Gipson. Perhaps it would be best to write a summary paragraph about his position on various issues, using quotes where appropriate, and then just leave a list of links to articles he has written, possibly even in a subpage called List of articles by Simon Gipson. Any thoughts? Harro5 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published works section 
Talk:Siege of Amida (359)

message: *Support - The smaller page was created due to a bad link, which indicated that the larger page did not exist, when it in fact did.  The two pages, referring to the same battle, should be merged into a single page.  I would prefer Siege of Amida for the new page's title, since the battle seems to classify as such. Roy Al Blue 03:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Julu

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 
Talk:Battle of Lemberg (1918)

message: * The town is named Lviv. Lwów this is Polish name. --Birczanin 07:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lviv 

message: Nothing is mentioned in the article about the result of this battle.
Peter558 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won the battle? 

message: For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review: failed

message: The most correct name of the article is Battle of Lemberg (1918) because Lemberg was that-time neutral name of the city. After Polish won the battle the city became Lwów but during the battle Lviv or Lwów were not neutral, both of them meant supremacy of one or another side.--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Reasons: 1. the city was not under Austrian control anymore, it was under Polish control. 2. The city was majority-Polish. 3. The city was recognized as part of Poland in Versailles. 79.191.153.61 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request: Battle of Lwów (1918)
Talk:Frugality

message: "These ideas are attributed to Henry Bemis." has triggered my b.s. meter.  Google turned up that "henry bemis" was a character on twilight zone.  Also set-off by "Rational Liberatory Self Consumption", which just sounds like a contrived and convoluted pos phrase.  please excuse me if I'm wrong, would like a reference or at least a little explanation of where this name and phrase come from.
:Agreed;  The subject is too abstract to require credit to (fictional?) individuals or quasi-related movements.  Also, I changed     some of the grammar in the first sentence, as I arrived at this page to find out what Frugality meant and misinterpreted the definition.
Agreed. Im a nerd just like you guys. Sike
So, "There are also environmentalists who consider frugality a virtue since it brings humans back closer to their roots as hunter-gatherers, carrying little and needing little, and finding meaning in nature instead of manmade religion."  This is total drivel!  Who agrees that it should be removed? 75.164.96.9 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your sentiments.  This article is keenly apropos in its brevity.  Drivel is not frugal. Saint Inker (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd say it's partial drivel, not total drivel. There are people who engage in the practices described here for environmental reasons and not for saving money. Frugality is about avoiding waste, reducing costs may be an effect of it, but not necessarily the main goal. Of course, I don't have a reliable source for this assertion yet. Frntk (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: — Assignment last updated by Trexler369 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: INQ 120 What a Waste

message: — Assignment last updated by Dkhora (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 193 - Behavioral Science in Practice
Talk:Battle of Rimini (432)

message: There is no source which refers to this battle as "The Battle of Ravenna." It would therefore be more accurate to call it "The Battle of Rimini" (Or "Ariminium") since that's what both primary and secondary sources refer to it as. Also, there was a "Battle of Ravenna" that took place in 425 between Aetius and Aspar. MMFA (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Battle of Rimini"
Talk:Siege of Syracuse (213–212 BC)

message: (the tale of mirrors to reflect light onto the Roman fleet intended to cause fires was actually a myth introduced several centuries later by various historians.) *This myth was tested on the show MythBusters, and proved that mirrors to light fires were not only impractical but virutally impossible for the following reasons:
1. Worked only at a short distance (less than 50 meters)
2. Worked only on stationary targets (Roman ships, however, moved)
3. Took too long to light an object on fire (more than 15 minutes), and most of the trials failed
4. Could not coordinate all the mirrors to focus on one single ship
5. Huge amount of mirrors required
-intranetusa
Thats very intersesting i wish i had caught the show i often wondered about hows the mirrors would work thanks for letting me know.
user:king Alaric
It was an interesting show but the mirrors used by Mythbusters were rather primitive.
In 1747 George Louis LeClerc experimented to find if the burning ships myth was possible.
He assembled 168 8x10 inch mirrors adjusted for a focal lenth of 150 ft. He then removed mirrors to find the minimum needed to set fire to a target.
It took 128 mirrors to ignite instantly a pine plank at 150 feet. 40 mirrors would ignite a plank coated in Creosote at 66 feet.
Then in 1976 Dr Ioannis Sakkis used 60 sailors each holding an oblong mirror to "instantly" ignite a ship at 160 feet. The ship was not moving and the sailors couldn't keep focus on one that was.
In 1992 a physics experiment tried to replicate what was possible in the siege. The scientists found they needed 440 men each with a bronze mirror 3 ft sq to ignite a ship at 150 feet. They concluded it was possible but a waste of manpower.
The most common reason for debunking the myth is that it is so hard to ignite a moving ship but there are records that claim that Archimedes first immobilised the ships with an "iron hand" then set them on fire so it's possible he used relatively few men at a much shorter distance than claimed. Wayne 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythbusters prove that the mirror weapon was a myth

message: the map in the information box doesn't even show he location of the city (Syracuse)being sieged!  SJMNY (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: What events after Cannae showed the Romans the importance of sieges in ancient warefare? I couldn't find anything in the "aftermath" section of the Battle of Cannae article that would suggest the Romans found themselves in siege warefare situations. Perhaps there is a section in the Second Punic war article that could be linked to in order to demonstrate the point. Polloseco (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events after Cannae
Talk:Battle of the Willows

message: I take it the 'Roman records' refer to the Antonine Itinerary. But that puts the station Ad Salices somewhere between Histria and the Danube delta. So that would go against the claimed location near Marcianopolis/Devnya, which, iirc, was based on the course of events in Ammianus.74.96.61.80 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it? 

message: Why? How are they appropriate? 71.191.228.6 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mjollnirs?

message: Ammianus book 31, chapters 7 and 9; Simon MacDowall 2001 'Adrianople AD 378', p. 55. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Frigeridus was NOT present and Farnobius was killed in a later battle

message: The raw wiki text claims the date of 377CE is controversial. 
Is it? 
The Bohn(1862) translation of Ammianus's Roman History says 'A.D. 377.'
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ammianus_31_book31.htm#C7
What is the controversy?
RMcPhillip (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exact date controversial, ..." Really?