lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Aromatherapy

message: (Except as a placebo or calming the user down)
REDsEngineer (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people mistakenly think this works. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely that depends upon what you expect it to do? John2o2o2o (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who actually thinks this works? 

message: The article is overly polite. I can understand the reasons to be polite and forgiving but quackery needs to be called out as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.233.24 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a form of medicine at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackery
Talk:A

message: In A#Typographic variants, the image of "Modern italic A" is truncated, cutting off the right half of the lowercase 'a'. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me? I have added a thumbnail here, are you seeing the same issue? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious. Where it is resized, I see an entire single-storey a; otherwise I see the first half of a two-storey a.  Perhaps the svg's specification of a font is flawed.  —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should change the svg, because I am having the exact same problem Aoscf77 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a reduced (to 25% of default) size image on the left and it still looks ok. Surely once the .svg has been made, that's it? SVGs are not dynamic, afaik, certainly not this one. What you see is what they get? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I see the italic A exactly the same, all the other ones are fine. Aoscf77 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like the :File:Modern Italic A.svg just contains a text span with a string of "Aa" and font setting of "Times New Roman", which isn't a supported free font available to the MediaWiki renderer. This should be replaced with a graphical path. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done this now; display should be fixed once the cache is updated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody fix the glyph 

message: 154.121.107.69 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023 

message: You could add “a use in kids literacy is A is for apple” or something similar Notsayingmyname (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 3df (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change  

message: Please change the word  to  in the lead sentence to maintain the consistency. 2001:EE0:4BC7:E310:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: GrayStormTalk Contributions 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request
Talk:Affidavit

message: the link doesn't really contain any affidavits and is just a legal form web page. I see no reason it should be here and will delete it if no one can give a good reasion it should be kept (other than it was helpful)Harlock jds 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  looking at the user lawpro's editing history he seems to be adding this link to promote the website. I'm going to go ahead and delete it (as it has been deleted from many other pages it has been added to for the same reason) Harlock jds 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lawpro for lawpro's contributions (which are mostly that link) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawpro to see him be warned for spam. additionally reference Wikipedia:External links (the page in question violates at least 3,5 and 13) and i can find little to no information about affidavits on the page (or many of the pages it links to. This is how i first found the problem because i was looking for information). I think the reason you don't find this link on the other pages is because it's been deleted because it's not something suitable for wikipedia. Harlock jds 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 5 is debateable (i consider it a lot but others may not) but 3 and 13 alone are enoughHarlock jds 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: The ONLY mention of England (and Wales) is in the section on Ireland: "Affidavits are made in a similar way as to England and Wales..." which would be an awful lot more helpful if the article explicitly covered what the situation was in England and Wales, rather than leaving readers to guess.  DrArsenal (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  England and Wales 

message: The section about "Australia" cites United States law as the reference... I think some edits ought to be made. :) 2601:C2:8406:33A9:C9DD:77F3:2D6F:9297 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian issues
Talk:Acantharea

message: Is this a family, genus, or what? article just says "group".
That was deliberate.  Right now relationships among the major groups of protists are very unclear, so many workers in the field have abandoned taxonomic ranks for the time being, and the remainder don't pay very much attention to them.  This is simply because they are too likely to change back and forth to be of any use.  The Acantharea themselves are variously ranked as anything from a subclass (or even order) up to a phylum, depending on whether one tries to retain the Radiolaria, Actinopoda and Sarcodina as taxa, replace them with other groups, or simply abandon them and promote the subdivisions.  I figured it would be best not to worry about this and leave them unranked until some day when the taxonomy hopefully stabilizes.
I am not a fan of abandoning taxonomic levels but in this case it is almost certainly sensibleJeremy Young (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to recommend that the subject of "Müllerian law" be moved to a separate article on that subject.  This would allow reference to that article and removal of the explanation of that law within this article, thus cleaning the structure of this article.  
I do not have the background or expertise to write such an article.  It appears that other forms of life have "spines" following this pattern.  I assume this because the easiest reference I can find to "Müllerian law" is "Müllerian law of Icosacantha" within the reports from the H.M.S. Challenger Voyage of Exploration (1873-1877).  Within these reports, there are many references to this law in conjunction with different species.  If I am incorrect, and the species names referenced in this very old set of documents all relate to the subject of this article, in short, if this law only applies to Acantharea, then please disregard this recommendation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfosterc (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure
Talk:Anthropic principle

message: Right now the lead is clear as mud. ChatGPT did a better job in the previous post. Here is Amanda Gefter's definition. 
She is an accomplished science writer and thus counts as SECONDARY. I propose we rewrite the lead to be as succinct and plainly explained as this.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead Needs Work

message: I'm feeling afraid to edit it personally because English is not my native language and I'm not an expert on the subject (I actually don't even understand the basics) but I believe that in this edit (line 145) the correct is "4πr" instead of (or rather than) "4Nr". I'm one of the translators of this article at ptwiki. I'm trying to keep the version there in line and up to date with this version. Can anyone confirm that my view about this point is correct? Thanks in advance for the understanding and I'm sorry if any mistake. Nishimoto, Gilberto Kiyoshi (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface area of sphere 

message: On the lower section regarding criticism and reception of the anthropic principle, it is claimed that Gould said "the claim that the universe was made for the benefit of our kind of life is the same as saying the sausage was made so that they could fit into the modern hotdog bun..."
There is no source for this, and I have scoured the internet and have found no such source. The closest idea I have to its origin is either (a) misinformation or (b) in Gould's book "Rocks of Ages". I do not own a copy myself and as such cannot look, I may buy a copy in the near future but until then the dilemma remains.
All instances of the quote have followed on from the date of the wikipedia entry and/or directly quoted the wikipedia entry.
I hope this quote is not misinformation as it is rather delightful; if anybody knows the origin of the quote, could they please reply to this thread and add the reference to the article.
Thank you. Wiki4arthur (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gould's Quote 

message: I will try and update when I have the time, but the neutrality of the article is suspect and the overall writing quality feels low.  136.62.145.176 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View in Question 

message: According to Sean Carroll  the correct anthropic criterion had been proposed by Eddington as early as in 1931: A universe containing mathematical physicists  will at any assigned date be in the state of maximum disorganization which is not inconsistent with the existence of such creatures. More authoritative sources about this?  --Popop (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins
Talk:Artificial intelligence

message: — Assignment last updated by Xc1181 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

message: The term "Cognitive system" is redirected to this article on artificial intelligence, although it is not described or even mentioned here. See also [[cognitive computing), where a diagram of a cognitive system is shown. --Bautsch (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you want is for "Cognitive system" to point to cognitive computing instead, I agree that it would make more sense. Alenoach (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive systems 

message: Hi there AI - people,
I would like to know what the Wikipedia Rules Dictate regarding the AI on this software with a few questions:
1. What kind of general security and user security rules we have here, are extra and private AI - mechanisms allowed to operate here?
2. What kind of known AI - systems the Wikipedia software include?
3. What AI - companies or AI - corporations operate wherein the systems or Wikipedia software in general?
4. How to register a new AI- system or AI bot network to the Wikipedia, if possible and not forbidden by the laws?
5. How transparent is the supervision of AI - technology in- and outside the Wikipedia?
6. Do we have any AI Code of Conduct? Where to find it?
7. What about the other languages? Are the founded AI rules universal within the Wikipedia?
8. How to report when malpractices observed?
9. Any AI jury?
Sincerely,
-- Atlas Kartasto (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the artificial intelligence article, so you are probably unlikely to get responses to a list of nine questions that are unrelated to improving this article. That said, the short answer to probably all of your questions is that wikipedia requires edits to be verifiable by reliable published sources, and user-generated content created by an AI is not verfifiable or reliable. You can check Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. Elspea756 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI on Wikipedia
Talk:Astrology

message: I want to add top astrology service provider list Aakanshadhoundiyal (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not a directory. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2023 

message: In the Criticism section:
Scholars argue that the driving force behind astrology is the need to deal with life and the longing to be connected to the cosmic world. Beliefs in astrology can also result from the Barnum effect, where individuals may take a so-called “cancer trait” such as high emotionality and apply it to themselves despite being vague and applicable to a wide range of people. Another explanation, among many, is selective memory, where people count the hits and ignore the misses. When looking at typical cancer-sign traits, individuals will focus on all the ones they find applicable to them, ignoring those that are not. Critics of astrology frequently cite astrologers’ ability to explain away errors. When personality traits do not add up to an individual’s astrological sign, birth times suddenly become unreliable, or people do not know themselves well enough. One of the central claims in Western astrology is that astrological signs account for personality differences, such as Cancer signs as emotional beings or Scorpio signs being fiery. Despite these claims, there has been little empirical support. In one study, participants completed the Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) and were grouped by their respective astrological signs. No statistically significant differences were found in personality traits across astrological signs. Theoretical foundations believe that various signs have different needs and wants, making signs compatible or incompatible with one another. A different study conducted in Sweden examined romantic compatibility, partner choices, and divorce rates among various astrological signs from 1968-2001. The results yielded no significant differences in astrological sign combinations between marriage partners or divorce rates among couples with varying degrees of compatibility. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest lower divorce rates among highly compatible couples. 142.116.207.128 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the request. You'll notice much of that is already covered pretty well in the Scientific Analysis and Criticism section. If you have a more specific edit to request, make another request. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023 

message: I would like to add the following link to the "External links" section of the Astrology page:
* Astronehaa - Comprehensive Astrology Resources
This website offers detailed articles on various astrological concepts and practices, providing valuable resources for readers interested in astrology. Astronehaa (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for advertising. Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2024
Talk:Alphanumeric keyboard

message: That keyboard is extremely dirty, and seems to have globs of some mystery substance stuck all over it. Can someone get a better picture? --Edlin2 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the article - the bullet list. See IBM_PC_keyboard; you  may add Amiga keyboard.
The bulleted list is rather... odd.  I can't exactly understand what it's trying to say... I think there needs to be some explanation of what the list is regarding. Oracleoftruth 03:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Presumably typewriter keyboards are "alphanumeric", so the merge may have been inappropriate. Claritas §  18:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was redundant anyway; once you have a keyboard, the symbols that you can put on it are arbitrary.  It's not like a telephone dial where there's a physical one-to-one correlation with the digit represented and the number of pulses made. How would an article on "alphanumeric keyboard" differ from an article on "alphabetic keyboard" or "numeric keyboard" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Arsenic

message: Wow, an entire page on an element with no mention of what solvents this element and it's main compounds are soluble in.
Does nobody care? 2600:6C46:6800:3322:4846:CCD0:7AAA:EADC (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The solubility of arsenic compounds is discussed under "Inorganic compounds" and "Agricultural" uses. Elemental arsenic itself is insoluble but it does not appear in the elemental form often enough for the solubility to be relevant to any major discussion in the article. Reconrabbit 16:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOLUBILITY!  Where is it?
Talk:Albert Spalding

message: Could somebody explain why "Due to Spalding signing with the White Stockings, he effectively ended the NA"?  Stephengeis (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ended the NA?

message: Most often my great-great uncle was referred to as A. G. Spalding, or his full name Albert Goodwill Spalding. His nephew, Albert Spalding was a world-renown violinist and composer (also served in WWI with Fiorello H. LaGuardia in the US Army Air Service in Italy). Wikipedia doesn't yet have a bio page for him, but in preparation of such a page, this page needs moving. It apparently has previously existed under a different name, and so I don't want to regress the database. Comments or suggestions welcome and hereby solicited. (BTW, yes, I have personal connections to this topic, so I have both some expertise in both men's bios, but also reason to take others' feedback to maintain NPOV.)
:It makes everything work better if you end with some kind of a signature.  If you have registered, you can use the 4 tildes ~~~~, and a timestamp will automatically be generated.  rags (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving to A. G. Spalding, or ..?

message: What is the reference for a birth year of 1849? All references I can find list 1850, including http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/spaldal01.shtml Thisdaytrivia (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Year
Talk:Anti-globalization movement

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Anti-globalization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27#Anti-globalization until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  C933103 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-globalization" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Movimiento antiglobalización has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 23:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Movimiento antiglobalización]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Afterlife

message: This topic is off to a great start, but needs citation improvement, especially secondary citations for multiple religions and topics. This is extremely important due to the controversy that comes from this topic, and to remain unopinionated on any specific religious belief of the afterlife. Smerblah (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source/Citation Improvement 

message: The entire Afterlife#Different_metaphysical_models section is filled with Christian conceptions of the afterlife presented uncritically and projected into other belief systems in ways that are wildly inaccurate. Valhalla, for example, is not equal to "Heaven." Strikingly, a link in this section that is presented as Hades is covertly piped to Christian views on Hades. Darker Dreams (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Afterlife#Heaven_and_Hell]]
Talk:Albigensians

message: It seems to me that Albigenses and Albigensians are the same group, and should share the same article. Incidentally, I would not mind seeing a merge of both into Cathar, but there were probably reasons for the creation of an extra article. Kusma (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't, really. As the article itself says, the group under discussion centred on Toulouse if anywhere, and to some extent merged with the Waldensians who have a quite different geographical origin. I would say the first paragraph of the article should be retained, since it explains the use of the term. The rest is duplicated under Cathar, or ought to be, and would be better deleted. Andrew Dalby http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dalby/ 18:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Merge

message: Maybe someone could change the wording of this page so it doesn't sound biased towards any specific religious denominations of beliefs. -- DavidDurieux 02:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Problems
Talk:Anti-communism

message: I think the spelling without hyphenation (Anticommunism) is more correct. In any case, "Anticommunism" is also used and should be included. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenation: "Anticommunism" or "Anti-communism" 

message: Historically, Anti-Communism and Anti-Semitism have been strongly linked.
Obviously you have the Nazis and Judeo Bolshevism, but there are also things like how the Protocols of the Elders of Zion make reference to "Jews using Communism" to conquer the world and such or the KKK which also played into this idea of Jewish Communism.
It was a very common idea, and still exists as a conspiracy today on the far-right.
I think this should be included? Genabab (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part on connection to Anti-Semitism