lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fuseki

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to fuseki. —Nightstallion (?) 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Fuseki doesn't mean 'opening', it means 'scattering of stones'. Therefore some openings would not count as fuseki, if there is an early fight. 
Indeed, the title is not a good idea. The page should be moved to Whole-board go opening theory.
Charles Matthews 11:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what Japanese wiki page should be linked to this "Whole-board go openings"? How do we establish an article for Japanese "布石"? In Chinese, Fuseki is 布局, meaning the opening arrangement. I think this article exactly introduces Fuseki.  If Fuseki doesn't mean "opening", we should establish another article named as "opening" something, not rename this page.  --Neo-Jay 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the article is on fuseki, it should be called such. Maybe there should be a merge between these and the Go_opening_theory and Go_opening_strategy articles. 128.6.175.15 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
As a big move of material was made on 4 March, I fail to see how this discussion was ripe for closure. Charles Matthews 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the name
Wikipedia talk:Harmonious editing club/Hall of Fame

message: Is there also a Hall of Shame for this? effeietsanders 11:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

message: These descriptions of "successes" have a notably judgmental tone. Shouldn't these be rewritten from a WP:NPOV? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone
Talk:Cryoprecipitate

message: Yes, this is correct.  Type "O" is only the universal donor for packed Red Blood Cells, the most commonly used component in transfusion medicine.
To put the immunology simply, type "A" or "B" refers to a structure (a "lock") on the surface of a red blood cell.  Type "O" means that neither is present.  Anyone with type "A" has anti-B (a "key"), anyone with type "B" has anti-A, and anyone with type "O" has anti-A and anti-B.  If you mix "A" with anti-A (i.e. the "key" fits the "lock"), you can get a hemolytic transfusion reaction.  Since type O red cells have neither "A" nor "B" it does not matter whether the recipient has either "key" since there is no "lock".  Since type AB plasma has neither anti-A nor anti-B, it is also safe since regardless of what "lock" is available there are no "keys."
The short version is that plasma compatibility matters a lot less, and transfusing the wrong plasma rarely causes problems, so teaching "O" as the universal donor makes sense even if it's only partially true.  SDY (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, plasma compatibility matters just as much. I think you might be thinking of platelet and cyroprecipitate compatibility which does not matter so much because the volume of antibody-containing plasma in them is low. We always give type-compatible plasma, whereas with cryo and platelets we give whatever we have unless there are special needs. 165.214.14.23 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article looks like it is stating it wrong. O- blood is the universal RBC donor, as you said, but if it is opposite for plasma, that would not make it the universal plasma donor as well. You can't have it both ways. Mikeferm (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with the statement is the word "recipient".  AB (no positive or negative) is the universal plasma DONOR whereas the sentence reads "AB+ type is the universal plasma recipient".http://thebloodconnection.org/about-blood/blood-education/blood-types/ab-positive/ https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/blooddonor/donationtypes/ab_plasma.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.34.100 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not "correct" the statement about universal donors
Talk:ABB ALP-44

message: What are the reasons why this locomotive retired?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 05:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement reasons?
Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 446

message: The article states:
Secondly, it is only intended to cover forcible transfers and to protect the local population from displacement. Article 49(1)of the Convention specifically covers "[i]ndividual or mass forcible transfers" whereas the Israelis who live in the settlements have moved there voluntarily, and argue that settlements are not intended to, nor have ever resulted in, the displacement of Palestinians from the area.
I think it needs to be made clear that this clause of Article 49 actually refers to the forcible transfers of those living in the Occupied Territory, ie the Palestinians.  Whether or not Israel has done this through mass house demolitions/arrests is a different debate.  I think the more salient clause in A49 is the last one:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
This, surely, is what Israel is in contravention of, and there is no mention of the transfers being forcible or not.
I've added in a short sentence to this effect ("However, Article 49(6) also prohibits the 'transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies', which would cover the Israeli settlements."), and put in a reference to the text of the convention.
86.156.238.219 10:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israeli MFA website has been updated to reflect the fact that the Supreme Court considers the Fourth Geneva Convention and portions of Additional Protocol 1 to be binding customary law. Like the Hague Convention, they do not require enabling legislation from the Knesset.  harlan (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel's Objections 

message: I tried to find an earlier UNSC resolution concerning the settlements without success. If this is the first such resolution, that would be a notable point perhaps worth mentioning in the article. Factsontheground (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely sure, but I think this was the first one because the USA vetoed earlier resolutions.  An example is here. Zerotalk 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the first UN resolution against the Israeli settlements? 
Talk:Justiniana Prima

message: This city has nothing to do with serbai or the Leskovac.--Hevnonen 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it, and put the translation request a year ago :-(. No response... Duja► 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried a rough translation but being a German native speaker some stylistic polishing might be necessary. I concentrated on describing the importance of the city; details about certain buildings etc. can still be added. At least, now the article is more than a stub. --Proofreader 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the  tag. It's been there over a year and has not generated sufficient support (aside from the original bare, unsourced assertion) during that time. All responses here have been in favor of the article as is. MishaPan 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone who knows how add the coordinates for this site?  For the record they are: 42' 57" 12 N 21' 40"10 E.  Sorry to say I just spent a good deal of time *trying*to find the site using google earth, but none of the web sites I found had more than vague directions/location Information.  BTW, before posting this, please do check me.  I am 90% sure I've correctly identified the site, but there's still that errant 10%.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.184.94 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is good location. I will add it. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Country
Template talk:Infobox Doctor Who doctor

message: Can someone do something clever to stop it displaying "1996–1996" and "2005–2005"? --KJBracey 12:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tenure

message: For the record (because we just had an edit war over this), the "companions" field in this template is for companions of that Doctor.  Although there is some debate in fandom about people like Sara Kingdom and Mike Yates, it shouldn't be controversial to identify which companions are associated with which Doctor.  As a rule, characters who return for a special reunion episode are not included in the infobox for the Doctor they meet in that story (so, Susan isn't a companion of the Fifth Doctor just because they met in The Five Doctors, and Sarah Jane isn't a companion of the Tenth just because of School Reunion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companions 

message: Why has the logo been removed from the template?--Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs •  count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was considered decorative, and hence did not meet Wikipedia's policy for use of nonfree content. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOGO 

message: I've just added the "finish" parameter to Tenth Doctor, but it's not displaying.  I even tried purging the page, but to no effect.  What's going on? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind —  found and fixed the problem (a duplicate parameter).—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Display problems?
Talk:Thomas Cook

message: Hello, I wonder if interested parties would mind popping over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Cathedral_Steps and clicking the 'thomas cook' link in the references section, or reading the talk page.  Theres an interesting building that could be related to Thomas Cook, we can't tell at the moment for sure. Parrot of Doom 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Cook history in Manchester 

message: What in the world is going on with the Legacy section in this article? The entire section is about Thomas Cook's effect on tourism in Italy, a country that isn't even mentioned in the text before that point. 97.102.30.205 (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy
Talk:Jonathan Knight

message: Until a living person verifies in an interview or through an authorized representative a fact about their personal life (in this case, purported homosexuality) we should handle it more carefully than the original revisions. We have to use words like "claimed" and "porported". Hampton (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section regarding Knight's supposed outing and did a some other maintenance as well. While it may be true, sources like Just Jared, Perez Hilton and The National Enquirer are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Until there is a reputable source that reports this (not a gossip blog or a tabloid) or Knight himself gives an interview and explicitly states he's gay, it shouldn't be mentioned here per WP:BLP. Pinkadelica Say it... 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is so funny this way. Editors seem to forget that anyone can read the discussion page. Therefore, his reported outing has been dealt with on this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.61 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We're aware that anyone can read the talk page just as anyone can edit any page. It says so right at the top. No one is saying it's a secret and should be hushed up. Pinkadelica Say it... 06:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Regarding this, Spanish Wikipedia has made this unverified information a good portion of their rather small article. It cites an article which reports on an "interview" with his alleged boyfriend and photos in the National Enquirer. Obviously this can't be a reliable source. I can read Spanish decently but can't write well enough to properly contest it.  Maybe someone whose Spanish is better than mine can go and check it out? --Susan118 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I decided to take a stab at the Spanish Wikipedia issue myself, by removing the questionable stuff and then attempting to construct an explanation in Spanish on the talk page. Hopefully it makes sense. --Susan118 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outing Handling

message: The article says that Jonathan is the fifth of six children in his family, but then goes on to list six names, none of which is Jonathan. - Elmarco 01:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth of Six Children? 
Talk:12th Infantry Regiment (United States)

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:Jauch family

message: Hello Avé, You added the titel "Count" to the name of Theodor Avé-Lallemant. Is there any proof for this rank? As far as I know, his stems allegedly from the line of the Counts Lallemant de Betz of France. But I have never seen that the german family Avé-Lallement is using a title.--213.168.66.58 12:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theodor Avé-Lallemant

message: in German, mayor = Bürgermeister
or is Burgomaster supposed to be the old version??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.14.92 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burgomaster?? 

message: * The Baroque Branch Office of J.C. Jauch & Söhne at Hamburg 1890 as a residential home for elderly men – destroyed in the Bombing of Hamburg in World War II
* The Auguste-Jauch-Stiftung at Hamburg, an almshouse for detached women – destroyed in the Bombing of Hamburg in World War II
* The Damenstift at Kiel, a residential home for elderly women - destroyed in the bombing of Kiel in World War II
* The reconstructed Fortuna Gate of the destroyed Potsdam City Palace
--Fifat (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donations of the Jauch family 
Talk:Equivalence

message: Maybe, there can be good to put origins of word equivalence. Sometimes, understanding origins of the words can help us to understand underlying concept. I think that its origin are from ancient Greek or Latin or both (equi- and valence meaning the same value).
--User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

message: I was lead to this page, when I noticed, that a mathematics article had been "improved" by replacing a link to equivalence to a link to equivalence relation.  This was 'nonsensible' in the context, which concerned two equivalent polynomial equations.
The problem is that I cannot find any sensible link to "equivalence as in equivalent equations".  The closest items I found were Logical biconditional (which however is leaning a bit to formal mathematical logic, and does not even mention the double arrow \iff, and If and only if, which hardly mentions equivalence.  Does anyone know about any better page?
To believe that a reference to "equivalence of equations" should be a case of "equivalence relations" is clearly a mistake; but it is an understandable mistake, to which this dab page probably contributed.  Its "Mathematics" heading starts with Equivalence relation, and no other item is strikingly more adequate.  The dab does contain Logical biconditional, but only under the Logic heading.  With the appearance the article now has, tIMHO, that is adequate.  I could list If and only if under the mathematics heading; but then it should be accompanied by a few words of explanation, which in general is deprecated in dabs. JoergenB (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cannot find an adequate reference to "the ordinary usage" in mathematics! 

message: Can we replace this disambiguation page with a WP:Broad-concept article that could also serve as the main article for :Category:Equivalence? The old contents and history would need to be copied/moved into Equivalence (disambiguation). My draft User:Dpleibovitz/sandbox/Equivalence has too much WP:OR for now, so more experience editors are dared to be bold. Dpleibovitz (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broad-concept article
Talk:Supriya Pathak

message: Is she related with Pankaj Kapoor, Ishaan Kapoor, Dina Pathak and Ratna Pathak? Wasn't she a teenager in movie Kaliyug by filmwalas production starring Shashi Kapoor, Shabana Azmi and others?
Npindia 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "1980 Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award for her role in Kalyug" but the release year for the movie is apparently 1981.
Abhijitpai (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year inconsistency? 
Wikipedia talk:Board of Appeals

message: Let me state this plainly and simply. If your proposal gets rejected by the community (e.g. the "supreme court") it is absolutely pointless to make it again under a different name or reworded slightly. See also Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, m:instruction creep and Vexlit. >Radiant< 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This proposal, quite frankly, will be rejected by the community. In the future, Wikizach, it might be helpful to post some of your ideas at the village pump first to gauge support and opposition first, before creating a separate page. If no one else voices support for this, I will go ahead and tag this as rejected soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk:The Spirits Book

message: It's not clear from this page what needs expert opinion. Please explain here or remove the tag. --217.204.163.50 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree  with your opinion; the article is a consistent summary of the book, and with this expert tag added it seems like the article have inaccuracy entries. Gonna delete it. Sgodth 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert Tag
Talk:Johann Bernoulli

message: Ok, well I have a small biography laying around in my archives somewhere, I will expand on it in my free time and add the content to this article after reviewing my sources once more.  This will be my first edit to Wikipedia, so I shall apologize in advance if the style or format are eye-sores.  --Scarabdrac 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some information on L'Hopital's rule because it seems to me that readers interested in it can find information on it in its article.Rock soup 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial editing

message: Johann Bernoulli and his family are referred to often in the very accessible 2006 book, "The Calculus Wars", by Jason Bardi.  Pazouzou (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The account of the controversy involving Guillaume de l'Hopital presented at that page is much more detailed and also more accurate.  This should be noted here.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy over the book 

message: I think the name L'Hospital (in the article) should be changed for L'Hôpital because names of people shouldn't be changed, even though the pronounciation is the same.
--mj (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  L'Hôpital / L'Hospital 

message: How is Bernoulli pronounced? --Taejo|대조 12:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowadays, most people say berr-NEW-lee. No idea if it was pronounced this way in 17th-century Switzerland. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 
Talk:Mass concentration (astronomy)

message: Does this mean if "I" enter a positive gravitational anomaly/mascon weighing 200lbs before entering, that i will be heavier than 200lbs upon entry?
this is quite interesting to know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakumo-Elite (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your weight would change as you walk over the surface of the Moon. Same happens on the Earth. See the World gravity map Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  important question 

message: This article has had only minor edits since 2010 and I think it might be a bit out of date.
Probably should mention this research from 2013:
"The mass concentrations form a target pattern with a gravity surplus at the bulls-eye surrounded by a ring of gravity deficit and an outer ring of gravity surplus. The team found that this pattern arises as a natural consequence of crater excavation, collapse and cooling following an impact."
Team solves the origin of the Moon's 'mascons' mystery
Robert Walker (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lunar Masscons explained by asteroid impacts

message: The article is written in a very dense style and requires modification to make it more accessible. Robma (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of article
Talk:List of statutory instruments of the United Kingdom

message: I noticed that the category I created to hold these lists is "Lists of the Statutory Instruments...". I don't know why I put "the" in the title, should it be changed to the simpler "Lists of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom"? Kurando | ^_^ 10:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI category 

message: Hi, List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1991 is scheduled for page division. Please contribute in this goal.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 10:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ELAC notice

message: Something I've come across in my research into British colonial history is that there have been a number of orders in council made that are not Statutory Instruments in the formal sense, even though they are not substantively different in content.  Accordingly, they are not numbered, although I believe they have nevertheless been included in the annual collections of SIs (perhaps in an appendix?).
By way of background:
I'm not sure how many of these instruments there have been, although there can't have been a great number.  Protectorates and mandated/trust territories were generally dealt with under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, and I believe that most colonies would have been dealt with under the British Settlements Acts or specific Acts of Parliament.  However, a small number of colonies established by annexation or cession (rather than settlement) would have fallen through Parliament's net and thus would have been legislated for under the Royal Prerogative.  I'm fairly sure that Fiji and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands would both have fallen into this latter group, and (at a guess) the Cape Colony.  Possibly also Gibraltar, Hong Kong (before the passage of the Hong Kong Act 1985), and the territory of the Ashanti, to name a few others?
I'm fairly confident that the following are not SIs, to give some concrete examples:
*Fiji Independence Order 1970  [made Sep. 30, 1970]
*Tuvalu Order 1975  [made Sep. 17, 1975]
*Gilbert Islands Order  [made Sep. 17, 1975]
I'm not sure if Royal Instructions also fall into this category.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how these should be dealt with?
Silverhelm 07:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders in council that are not SIs