lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Unit fraction

message: I think that the sum of every unit fraction i.e. 1/1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5... is about 11.66757818, encase anyone wants to mention that in the article. Robo37 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it grows to infinity as you include more fractions. See harmonic series. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sum of every unit fraction 

message: just a query about whether this article should have detail on the history of unit fractions and more information on their use within the context of Egyptian fractions... I think there's a lot of interesting information here, including the fact that fractions such as 1/3 predated things like 2/3 in the human development of maths, and would think this would be part of the "broad coverage" necessary for a GA tick. Cheeers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be bold and add it in. Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 10:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those topics that it's difficult to say much about the history of, because it belongs to the prehistory of mathematics rather than the history itself. But if you can find enough sourced material on the history as a general topic, rather than only on some specific subtopic like Egyptian fractions (which use unit fractions but are not unit fractions themselves), then I'm definitely open to including this material here. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

text: – this seems like an overly strong assertion. Ancient people definitely had some concept of “two thirds”, but didn’t express that using the modern fraction concept per se. In ancient Mesopotamia there were very complicated systems of units going back to like 5000 BC. ––jacobolus (t) 16:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they "predate things like 2/3 in the human development of maths" in the sense that each individual human, as a child, typically learns about concepts like 1/3 earlier than concepts like 2/3. But that's not about history, and it's already covered in the article, in its "Fair division and mathematics education" section. It is entirely believable that unit fractions predate other kinds of fractions in ancient mathematical history as well, but saying such a thing here would require finding reliable published scholarly work about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, my understanding of this area isn't really very advanced so I may have been barking up the wrong tree with this. I actually heard the idea that early people had 1/3 but not 2/3 from a Vsauce youtube video, which is obviously not a rigorous academic source . Anyway, if there isn't a lot of history associated with this concept specifically, then all is good, thanks for the responses.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Amakuru I am not an expert in this either, but in searching around I found the hypothetical explanation in Mott's book Natural Knowledge in Preclassical Antiquity to be pretty interesting, starting from p. 36. –jacobolus (t) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of unit fractions
Talk:Chuck Taylor All-Stars

message: nike bought the brand name when the company went out of business. i don't think "subsidiary" is the right term. 
2601:48:C601:50E0:247F:1E95:5B7C:F9FE (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Source given later in article -  - states Nike "agreed to buy Converse.” A slightly fuller timeline might be synthesized from  and , but I can find nothing referencing an IP-only deal. V/R, 50.81.24.10 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a subsidiary 

message: Gdhdjn&r 105.112.61.236 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses of chuck Taylor 

message: While for all intents and purposes the low top is the same shoe, only the high top version is a Chuck Taylor. 
They are however both Converse All-Stars. 
Chuck Taylor is synonymous with the high top version bearing the round patch. 
The photo of the shoes here is unfortunate as it shows the low top version which as mentioned is technically not a Chuck Taylor & is just slightly less infamous in pop culture. 
(I don’t know how to submit an edit request but this is my attempt) HoyaLibris (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture was recently changed, in this edit. Aesthetically I prefer the older high-top picture, but does this article say "the low top version ...  is technically not a Chuck Taylor"? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low top is not CT
Talk:Bio-Dome

message: Tell about the story about the Great Chipmunk Fire of 1979!
--Bushido Hacks 04:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Great Chipmunk Fire of 1979

message: Did I see Jack Black and Kyle Gass at the hippie earth day party at the college as an early Tenacious D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.121.217 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct me if I am wrong 

message: I removed a point a the bottom about Metacritic users giving a higher score than the actual Metacritic scores as the high user scores were obviously satirical.76.68.120.231 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revomed Useless Point

message: In the box it says revenue of $13M, but the text is $26M. How does that work? Yaffley (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This discrepancy probably stems from IMDb listing two figures for the gross. I can't work what each of the figures represent but as Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers also give $13,427,615 as the total domestic gross, I've decided to go with that figure. - Kollision (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't know how I arrived here, but
Talk:The Man Show

message: Mister Nighttime (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: An editor recently tagged this as "advert". It doesn't read like an advertisement, IMO.  Anyone else? -- JHunterJ 14:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't sound like an advert to me.--Folksong 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert? 

message: Where does the "Ziggy Socky, Ziggy Socky, Hoy, Hoy, Hoy!" come from?  When he lead the audience, did he have a sign with that spelling?  Unless it's in print like that somewhere, it should just be deleted in favor of the actual "Zicke, Zacke, Zicke, Zacke, Hoi, Hoi, Hoi!"  Also, this should sync up with The Fox's page better. Brettland 19:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ziggy Socky? 

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: The info box says "see below" next to theme, then there's nothing below.  The hyperlink doesn't do anything either.  I tried looking throught the edit history and didn't see when it was removed or edited.
Medleystudios72 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the theme info?
Talk:Myla Goldberg

message: The original version of this article, which has been wikilinked and tweaked a little by helpful editors, was copied from this page or one like it - it seems to be Goldberg's standard bio. We haven't been given permission to use it, and it's not WP style anyway (the intro doesn't even say that she's a writer!), so I'm rewriting as much as I can. ←Hob 04:20, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, I may have caused confusion by editing after I posted this. The offending version is this one. ←Hob 01:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut-and-paste doesn't make good articles
Talk:Battle of Crooked Billet

message: The better known Frederick Watts was the grandson of the Col. (later General) Watts mentioned here (as mentioned in the Frederick Watts article). I'd thought about putting 2 seperate articles in for the older and the younger, but so far the "older" article would only be a stub.  I'll put the link back in about a week, if nobody objects.  Smallbones 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandfather 

message: I'm not going to be a popular guy for this, but huge sections of this article were directly lifted from:
http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/780501.htm
Which is copyright Genealogy Inc. I have removed what looks like the derived or direct copies from this page.
Splat215 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert this.  MYREVOLUTIONARYWAR.com, in fact, copied this article intact from Wikipedia.  I know, because I wrote most of this article from scratch.  I even copied the Gazette quote, which is copied intact onto that other website, from a piece in my personal collection.  Some paragraphs and wording, as they exist, were the result of some intense discussions and edit warring.  Review of this article's history, as the end result of these discussions and edits, will prove it was indeed created here, and is not a copyright issue.  Alphageekpa (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriate notices sent to that website's owner regarding incorrect usage of Wikipedia content without the correct notices. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted Content

message: Alphageekpa - enjoy the image! Hope it makes up for my previous revert! I also took images of the four faces of the monument if anyone wants them (there's text on all four sides) 
Splat215 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Split215.  I moved the image to the infobox, since we were missed an image there...and this was appropriate.  Appreciate the contribution!  I'm only a couple miles away from the monument myself, but always forgot to bring my camera with me when I was nearby. ;-)  Alphageekpa (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we might have a location for the monument, if not the battle?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Monument Image
Talk:List of American Revolutionary War battles

message: The Boston campaign is dated in the text to take place 75-76, but in the campaignbox it is stated to 74-76. Based on this discussion, the right date should be 74 - 76 —Jabamula 14:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston campaign 

message: I would just like to add that one of the first battles that took place in the American War of Independence was in Belfast Lough, Northern Ireland, just beside Carrickfergus Castle. I would be very pleased to see this added to the article. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.240.122 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrickfergus Castle 

message: This battle was in April 1781 near Petersburg, VA  -  does anyone know why this spelling is used rather than Blandford, which appears to be the more common name for the town east of Petersburg where it occurred?  Did the spelling change over time?--Parkwells (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Blanford]]

message: weren't there some battles in Kentucky and Ohio during 1782? Why weren't they listed?Ericl (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1782 

message: While I was doing my project I used Wiki, I couldn't have done it with out you all. 
                      riley(:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.69.161 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  doing a project 

message: The page is completely unprotected and prone to being vandalised beyond recognition, shouldn't we lock it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregnes2000 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locks 

message: Is there a reason why this battle is missing from the list? See also this CNN article today. effeietsanders 06:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Cuddalore (1783)]]
Talk:Battle of Alligator Creek Bridge

message: The Marker in Callahan says that "American" casualties were 9 and "British" casualties were 5. "American" and "British" are in quotes because of the fluidity of these terms at this particular time and place. Most of the "British" soldiers in this skirmish were from Georgia, most of the "American" soldiers in this engagement referred to themselves as "British" for most of their lives, "American" identity coming into solid fruition during this conflict, not beforehand. Nonetheless the precise quote on the marker is "CASUALTIES. American: 9   British: 5"
2602:30A:2CC9:1790:280E:2253:C9BA:DC7F (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of White Plains

message: Someone has vandalised this page, citing the battle as an American victory, replacing American casualty numbers without citing reliable sources and altering the text of the article. I have made some changes, but the article still needs work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page, along with Harlem Heights which also keeps being vandalised to an American victory SHOULD be locked to established users only (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I realize that the map pictured is from a historical source, but it is completely inaccurate. It portrays Byram Pond (or as it's known now, Byram Lake) as directly East of White Plains, however it is actually several miles to the Northeast. Terry Town (now know as Tarrytown) is depicted as Southwest of White Plains, but it's actually Northwest of it. Its placed where Ossining should be located. Dobbs Ferry appears to be in the correct place relatively, however. Very strange. Based on the map it appears the battle actually took place in Chappaqua. Was Chappaqua considered part of White Plains in this time? 104.246.3.125 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something about the Map of the Battle seems wrong 
Talk:Battle of Sadras

message: Sadras was a town on the Coromandal coast of India, and was the subject of constant skirmishes between the Dutch, the French and the British.
How could this be a part of American war of independence?
* Because fighting between the French and British resumed when those powers went to war in Europe. So when France entered the American War of Independence (in support of the American colonists), the war naturally spread to India as it had done during the Seven Years War and the War of Austrian Succession. See the articles on those wars. JimmyTheOne 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American war of independence in India?
Talk:Siege of Savannah

message: Casimir Pulaski was not American but Polish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.13.77 (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: — Assignment last updated by Historian 2400 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Seminar in Digital and Public History
Talk:Battle of Saint Kitts

message: I am pretty sure that the French 74 Sceptre was not commanded by Louis-Philippe de Vaudreuil, who was aboard the 80-gun Triomphant at the time, crossing the Atlantic.  Sceptre was under the command of his younger brother Louis de Rigaud, comte de Vaudreuil.  Check in Villiers, La Marine de Louis XVI.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferreiro (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command of Sceptre
Talk:Battle of Stony Point

message: This article totally eviscerated by severe vandalism that nobody, incl. me, caught. I will restore after incorporating edits made since the vandalism.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Evisceration

message: The "Lt. Henry Knox" mentioned in the article links to Maj. General Henry Knox. Rather positive that this is not the same person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.59.63 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lt. Knox 

message: "The British suffered heavy losses in a battle that served as a huge victory in terms of morale for the Continental Army." 
I think this observation has POV issues and is of questionably accuracy. Later in the article, it is stated that 20 men British were reported killed. THe speculation over 58 missing is left open. Does this relly represent heavy losses? 
I think  a "huge victory in terms of morale" might be better put and does look like special pleading, repeated as it is in the introduction and in the body of the article. 'Important' might perhaps be a more proportionate adjective. In any case the morale effect of the action is really subsidiary to its military importance and, I would suggest, is either better discussed in the body of the article or referred to more moderately.JF42 (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: British losses included more than 500 captured, more than 2/3 of the garrison.  This is presumably what "heavy losses" refers to. Magic♪piano 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I have removed the reference to a story that "asserted that King George III fought back tears when he heard of the "mercy" that had been shown to his troops": which cites the following work: Loprieno, Don, The Enterprise in Contemplation: The Midnight Assault of Stony Point, Heritage Books Inc., 2004, ,  (with no page number given). 
I own a copy of this book and this story definitely does not appear in it. 
RobJohn1964 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdote about King George III's response to Stony Point 

message: I have edited down the repetitive text in the final paragraph of this section that relates to the nature of Stony Point as a promontory ("Peninsula").  
It may ultimately still require integration into the body of the main text. 
JF42 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography
Talk:Battle of Trenton

message: Are we certain it is correct to list the state of Hesse-Kassel as a belligerent in this battle? The Hessian soldiers were from Hesse, yes, but they were not serving under the command or authority of the government of Hesse-Kassel. They were mercenaries hired by the British - part of the British armies and under British command and authority.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.163.104 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hesse-Kassel as a belligerent 

message: Is a war that had at least 7 different battle sites 174.255.2.2 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolution war nap 

message: A tea pot on a tower and the water is very nice and the kids are very friendly to us to get things done and going. 174.255.2.2 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tea pot kettle
Talk:Battle of the Assunpink Creek

message: Who won this battle? I have looked around, and I have been unable to find a reliale reference which gives this answer. One could say it is an American Victory, because they inflicted heavier casualties and out manuvered the British, or one could say it wasa British Victory because they held the field of battle. Red4tribe (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the article it states it was a "British Pyrrhic Victory" which basically describes the situation you see, they kept the area but took heavy losses, a pyrrhic victory. The website that is cited: http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770102b.htm says that the victory was british and that seems to be a credit worthy website, given it is a website about the revolution. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That is very weird, as this battle was clearly a seperate engagement. Every historian that has written a book on this subject that I have read also regards it as a seperate engagement. Also, the same is for Washington's Crossing Historic Park.-Kieran4 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The battle was essentially a draw with the British unable to dislodge the Americans from the positions and the Americans unable to prevent the British from occupying Trenton which they did with some loss of life on the American side. I think it would be best to characterize the result as inconclusive.--Karl franz josef (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Won?

message: The definition of victory seems to change on almost every article to suit the American sideBen200 (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course it was a British victory. The British were obviously so busy celebrating their great "victory" that they were unable to help out their compatriots who were annihilated by the same obviously defeated Americans at Princeton the very next day. Jsc1973 (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not an American victory 
Talk:Devics

message: Devics is also the name of a disease similar to MS. How would you change this to a disambiguation page?
:Doesn't need a disamb, just a link to redirect to the official disease name. Which I've added. The Yeti (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On the cover for "My Beautiful Sinking Ship" the bandname is spelled "Dēvics", on the others it could be either "Dēvics" or "Dévics" (though it looks more like the former to me). Discogs.com has them under "Dévics" (with "Devics" as name variation), allmusic.com and Musicbrainz.org under "Devics". Their official site consistently spells them "Devics". You can probably tell that I'm rather confused by all this… If it's really "Devics", why consistently spell it "Dēvics" on the covers? Because it looks good? But if it's really "Dēvics" or "Dévics", why not spell it that way on the official site? 87.165.227.219 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Devics, Dévics or Dēvics?
Talk:Battle of St. Michaels

message: I found the following from the Harper's Encyclopedia of the United States History 458 A.D. to 1906
Between midnight and dawn on Aug. 11 the invaders proceeded to the attack in eleven barges, each armed with a 6-pounder fieldpiece.
This wiki article states the date of the battle as August 10.  Is Harper's wrong? Craigelliott 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: August 10, 1813 is the correct date.  Harper's is wrong on the year, and wrong by calling Brigadier General Perry Benson "Derry Benson". TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Discrepency 

message: I just found http://www.visit1812.com/history/ which lists two battles in St. Michaels -- one in 1813 and one in 1814 -- both on the same day, August 10?  Is this a coincidence or an error?  --Craigelliott 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: St. Michaels was defended again on August 26, 1813—this time from the other side of town. TwoScars (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two battles? 

message: As I grew up in nearby Wittman, Maryland, I was always told that the lanterns in the trees fooled foot patrols by making them think the town was more heavily guarded than it actually was. --Joe Sewell (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That clever myth is covered in the new November 2021 version of the article. TwoScars (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How they "fooled the British"