lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lucky imaging

message: I don't know where this could be found, but if anyone is able to hunt them down, some comparisons of resolution with ordinary exposure and resolution with the lucky imaging technique would be educational in showing the improvement possible.  -Kasreyn 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, indeeed, the article now contains a series showing 100%/50% down to 1% of the images chosen, however people will likely wonder how a single exposure looks like, and maybe also how 50 look compared to 500. maybe best would be a good one that is in the 1% and a bad one that gets discarded quickly...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.83.52 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison images

message: The 50% and 10% demonstration images appear to contain two barely visible objects to the right of the brightest object. Presumably these arise because of wrongly shifted images (where the objects on the left were shifted to the center)? Might be nice if someone more knowledgeable could add a note about this to the article. 217.121.224.124 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghost objects

message: From this article, it's not immediately clear how the "best" images from a large set of exposures are selected.  Can anyone add some information?  Papa November (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are the "best" images selected? 

message: In this diff, 
,
back in 2016, in the last paragraph of the Demonstration of the principle section, you changed “The weakest - tertiary - component a M7-M8 spectral type star”, which is what the ESA source says, to “The weakest - tertiary - component are M4.5 and M5.5 spectral type stars.” The new sentence does not make grammatical sense, since it starts by talking about a single star, and then apparently describes plural stars. I assume you had some basis for making the change. Could you clarify what is meant and supply a source for the change? Thanks for your work on this article.--agr (talk)
:Thank you for this hint. The sentence you mention is indeed more than misleading. I did correct it and given a reference to the demonstration target in addition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecodeluz (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again.--agr (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tertiary component edit 

message: I haven't found any implementation of it through googling though: 
A novel hybrid algorithm for lucky imaging by Jin-Liang Wang (王锦 良), Bin-Hua Li (李彬华) and Xi-Liang Zhang (张西亮)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.192.139.52 (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A newer whitepaper on lucky imaging that I just found
Talk:Battle of Byczyna

message: Surely since the battlesite was in a German town, on the German side of the Polish border (and not in Poland!), it should be called the Battle of Pitschen? It makes no difference that the town is now in Poland. Compare usage of the battle of Kunersdorf, which is not known internationally as the battle of Kunowice (the modern Polish name)! 
Battle of Byczyna should redirect to Battle of Pitschen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.129.29 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Book research shows slight advantage for Byczyna (50 hits) versus Pitschen (30 hits). WP:NCGN may be of relevance. I am open to further discussion on this, but I suggest any move is done through the WP:RM discussion procedure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Pitschen or Byczyna?

message: I am moving this claim to talk from the article, as it is unreferenced and I cannot find any confirmation of it outside Wikipedia. Feel free to restore with a ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hill 218 near Roszkowice

message: B-class confirmed for WP:POLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class 
Talk:Battle of Kliszów

message: The text says both armies had about 20,000 soldiers. The template says the Swedish army had 12,000 and the Polish had 24,000. Which is correct? – Alensha  talk 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Technically this should probably be under "Battle of Kliszów" per the usual naming conventions, although this is a minor point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kliszów seen to be more frequently used and is also the name for the battle in Swedish. If you're suggesting a move, I support it. Imonoz (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: Draft has some information not in article.  Draft and article should be compared. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Alexander Alejandro (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Draft:Battle of Kliszów]] into [[Battle of Kliszów]] 

message: I've started reviewing and editing the article copy per Alexander Alejandro's request. Here are my notes so far:
* Too much detail in intro? Per MOS, lead section for an article of this size should be one or two paragraphs
* Flank vs wing? "Flank" sounds more appropriate when talking about maneuvers and locations, but under Line of Battle, "wing" seems more appropriate. Could use advice
* Line of Battle better as a list? The Crown Army section is especially bad but the whole section seems unsuited for paragraph structure. Will review MOS
* Is M in Field marshal capitalized? Likely, will confirm
* Should Ryttmästare be italicized? Will review MOS
* Is Cavalry General a title? Need to research
Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 04:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Editing
Talk:Battle of Dubienka

message: Heh yess polish :). R lost in battle 1800 and 600 after in hospital. Polish - 900 in battle and 2900 after (Russian artillery is cool). Poland lost all crossings in region and Russian open way to Lublin. all Polish victory like that? 95.52.115.136 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish victory he he he  

message: The following Polish text contains an interesting analysis of some numbers, but as a forum post, it is not a reliable source: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers
Talk:Battle of Moyry Pass

message: I don't quite understand the final sentence, on Mountjoy learning about the queen from Essex's experience: I guess it means that, having seen the way Essex's campaign was represented at court, he had to play up another stalemate as a victory? The strategic significance of Moyry Pass in the context of the all-Ireland war could be expanded, and what did the Spanish make of it? Did it encourage the Kinsale expedition? Geoffrey Fenton was a crown councillor - but was he also an officer in Mountjoy's army? BTW - the WP article on Fenton is daft.--shtove 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just did a small rewrite, which I hope is OK. Bealach na mhaighre doesn't translate as Gap of the North: can someone supply it - the way of the ....?--shtove 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Gap of the North does what it says on the tin - no problem. But how does Bealach na mhaighre translate into English? If we had a map - much needed - how would the pass be labelled? Moyry, of course. What about the other points - Essex and Spain?--shtove 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points 

message: :(1)An editor added a flag emblem to the "box" and it was reverted by JD. I have since restored it a few times and always JD reverts. Could we please have an explanation why "no flag" is appropriate for the Irish side of this war? 
:(2) I made an edit myself to remove (I assume good faith) pov language which suggested the British casualty figures were more credible than the Irish ones; again JD has been reverting this along with the flag reverts. An explanation here might also be more productive than edit warring. Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags, again

message: So O'Neill left on Oct 8-9 and Mountjoy finally came back on the 17th, after abandoning the field and heading for a town with his army? Is anyone seriously calling that a stalemate? Strategically, it was a victory for the English logistics, O'Neill couldn't keep his army there forever so the English supply train won over the Irish raising but tactically on the battlefield it was pretty clear cut. None of those soldiers marching back to Dundalk or out of it later would have thought they had fought to a stalemate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.57 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalemate?
Talk:Battle of Raymond

message: Just curious ... why class B?  Any hints on how to upgrade?
:Citations, citations, and more citations, mainly. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A map would help. Also subsections. See also WP:GA.--Kkmurray 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: I added a infobox but the info in it is kinda scarce, please help me by adding more information--Gw099 01:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: "and his heart must have sunk."
Describe the battle details and all, do not narrate as if the generals and troops are characters. --68.209.227.3 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  describe the battle 

message: I am actively working on rewriting this article with hopes of working it up to GA status.  The currently-existing content is mainly sourced to primary sources and lacks citations in many places.  While it is currently admirably detailed, the sourcing to the Official Records, memoirs, and an obscure publication by a local friends of the battlefield group isn't quite good enough.  I'll be going through and rewriting this with secondary sources, particularly Ed Bearss, Shelby Foote, and Donald L. Miller. Hog Farm  Talk 05:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting
Talk:Battle of Pryor Creek

message: Hmmm... I'm not sure if this is even verifiable anymore. The first link has disappeared forever... I found this which mentions a similar-sounding battle, but happening in 1869. The "Arrow Creek" name, if I remember correctly, came from the first link, which was pretty comprehensive, I think - but now that it's gone... Brecher could have pulled anything out of his ass for all I know. So take this with a grain of salt right now. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe it did exist - see From the Heart of the Crow Country: The Crow Indians' Own Stories By Joseph Medicine Crow - can only read part of it on Google Books, but it has a big section on this battle. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Carrickfergus (1597)

message: No real problem with the latest changes, except they were made without discussion and by someone without a user page. Therefore, reverted.--shtove 22:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacDonnells/Scots 
Talk:Battle of Les Formigues

message: I suggest to change to "Battle of Les Formigues Islands" or "Naval Battle of les Formigues" like the oficial name of the place
http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_naval_de_les_Formigues
http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illes_Formigues
thanks
--Alyebard 12:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Battle of the Gulf of Naples

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Battle of Rhode Island

message: How is the Battle of Rhode Island in fact a British strategic victory? Comte de Rochambeau landed with a substantial infantry force, the French navy was able to retreat to Boston thanks to Greene's stand at the battle, oh yes the British were free to raid the New England coast but what does it matter if both the US - French alliance was saved and Rochambeau and his generals made it on land? Four Leaf Paladin (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, if anything it should be the contrary, a Tactical victory but indecisive strategically. But I'll leave it as indecisive by now. Frenditor (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Outcome 
Talk:Operation Zeppelin (deception plan)

message: IOW ... who led Zeppelin?<rim shot> Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , Advanced Headquarters 'A' Force; so  Dudley Clarke and his staff. As which staff exactly were responsible for planning the deception, not sure. It was probably the staff of Main HQ in Cairo and Algiers, possibly an officer called Sweeney attacked the Tac 2 HQ in Italy (he was involved deeply in Operation Royal Flush so likely was involved in Zeppelin too. Some of that is speculation. --Errant (chat!) 18:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. It was intended mainly as the setup line for a lame joke (as I think you realized ), but I did notice after looking the article over that no persons were named. Something to try to find out, I suppose. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was very tired and slow last night ;) So it went straight over my head.... --Errant (chat!) 10:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were the officers and commanders involved in planning this?
Talk:Operation Ironside

message: Happy New Year, everybody!  I have been accused of making an unconstructive edit for creating a See also section, specifically for the purpose of the addition of a link to Haversack Ruse which in my defense I did make sure didn't exist in the article beforehand.  I oppose. While I will readily and wholly concur that any edit can be semantically construed as 'unconstructive,' I am wholly unable to come up with the reasons why this one should be so, although I could see how perhaps a little a drier humor in the edit summary would be preferred, perhaps something more along the lines of 'I should have needed a crook,' perhaps?  My point is, I would like to seek input both on pointers on how best to achieve this as well as the aforementioned issue (ie how is that 'unconstructive' from anyone that should like to examine it.  Admittedly Main Page Day was probably not the best time to make even a constructive edit.  Thanks in advance. Oh and  sorry if I hurt anybodys feelings.  I honestly did not see that coming. Oh, and does anyone know if it is in fact "not allowed to apologize in France"?  If it is impermissible for me to do so, I probably want to retract my apology.[?]  Thanks. - 55378008a (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't strongly object myself to the inclusion; though I question how "see also" it is, other than just being another ruse. Haversack Ruse is probably more relevant to Operation Mincemeat. I suspect what caught you out was the edit summary which didn't make clear why you thought it was a good see also (except that it was just-another-deception) compared to other deceptions you could link to. What makes it related or relevant in a way that would link from this article? I don't know why you were warned for it, probably you shouldn't have been, although I notice you've been adding a lot of See Also's that have caused a reaction so maybe it's because of that. --Errant (chat!) 08:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding [[Haversack Ruse]] to the [[See also]] section
Talk:Battle of Pindus

message: The claim that the "Julia" Division was "wiped out" in this battle seems rather exaggerated. It was defeated, repelled and suffered heavy losses, but the "Julia" was still fighting during the rest of the Greco-Italian War; for instance, in the Capture of Klisura Pass in January 1941. This is not very consistent with a Division that was supposedly "wiped out" the month before. Mario Cervi, in his Storia della guerra di Grecia, page 139, writes that the "Julia" withdrew to Koritsa after losing about one-fifth of its troops. Which seems consistent with the previously reported (in this article) number of 1,674 troops lost by the "Julia" Division in this battle, now replaced with 5,000 casualties. I would say that 5,000 casualties (if correct) may be the total Italian losses in this battle, i.e. not only those from the "Julia" Division but also from other units (such as the 47th Infantry Division "Bari"). --2.36.88.48 (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiped out?
Talk:Battle of Embudo Pass

message: "The Battle of Embudo Pass was part of the Taos Revolt, a popular insurrection against the United States."  My opinion is that this was NOT a popular insurrection because this part of the world was still Mexico at that time.  The so called insurrectionists were in fact (or another opinion if you will) just the locals fighting back against an invasion by the US Army.  When one of them was hanged for "treason" later on even an American who was there found that to be ludicrous because what is "treason" in the face of an invasion? Well here, don't take my word for it, I actually found the book,Wah-to-yah and the Taos Trail written by Lewis H Garrard in 1850.  So he writes:
::It certainly does appear to be a great assumption on the part of the Americans to conquer a country and then arraign the revolting inhabitants for treason.
Three defendants are then sentenced with, muerto, muerto, muerto," and Garrard concludes this dismal chapter with:
::Justice!  Out upon the word, when its distorted meaning is the warrant for murdering those who defended to the last their country and their homes.
But I no longer feel up to fighting the wikipedia fight either, so I just leave this here for anyone who is interested. Carptrash 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article begins with
Talk:Battle of Aqaba

message: Faisal was spelled "Feisal" in three places in this article.  I do not know if that is an accepted alternate spelling, but I changed them to Faisal to remain consistent with the first use of the name in the article and with the spelling in the main page for Faisal_I_of_Iraq Kid Bugs (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Faisal / Feisal 

message: Was there even such a thing as the "Battle of Aqaba"? The article states various Ottoman outposts but none of which in the town of Aqaba proper.. "hree more Turkish posts lay ahead on the way to Aqaba: Guweira, Kethera, and Khadra" Makeandtoss (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle

message: Why were amphisbaenian not used 2A00:23C6:56B5:9801:70E8:8FBC:C2B0:E3A1 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibian
Talk:Battle of Bukit Timah

message: This article's reference (no. 2) is outdated and its source cannot be verified. It is well-written in the tone of a historical recount, but some of the information regarding the participating regiments in the battle are slightly misleading. The role of the Japanese 18th Division, as well as the 2 Indian Brigades, is not mentioned in the article. The defenders' viewpoint seems to be underrepresented, as they are described to be poorly-equipped and no plan of defence is highlighted, whereas the article focuses on the Japanese Forces' mode of advancement. Perhaps more information from the historical archives can be used to supplement this article. Wlee74 (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Union des étudiants juifs de France

message: I copied this article from the French version. It needs to be translated. If anybody can help, it would be great. Gadig 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know about the rules for this but I think it would be better to wait until it is translated before posting it in the English Wikipedia. If you do not have the time to translate all then make a stub of two or three sentences for the time being and remove or hide the French language part. Andries 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you comment it out? Gadig 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation
Talk:Jack Frost (1997 film)

message: OK, I replaced the completely bogus plot summary with information gleaned from the film's website and amazon.com. It's not as funny as the original, but it's more truthful. Benami 21:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, my bad. There are evidently two horrible movies out there with the same name, one released in 1997 and the other in '98. Self reverted. Benami 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Somebody created a new article for the same movie, but detailed it as releasing a year later. It is titled Jack Frost (1997 movie) so I think they need to be merged or this one entirely deleted. I don't know how to do it, but I'm assuming someone who watches this page will know. --Nehrams2020 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Page

message: Don't you think the little movie of a snowman raping a girl is a bit much?
:No, because Shannon Elizabeth is fucking hot.
:Don't you think that this isn't a place to discuss your opinion of the content? 24.233.113.155 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too graphic 

message: Is there a legitimate reason the scene where the snowman serial killer rapes one of his victims is mischaracterized in the plot summary?  It reads like he was clumsily hitting her with his chest till she died.  A reason might be that it is some how debatable, I was young when I saw it (and to this day I think its one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen) so maybe it wasn't as obvious as I remember.  But if it is just because who wrote the summary is squimish, then it should be changed to accurately reflect the events of the movie. 98.28.114.217 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape Scene

message: Which is it, 1996 or 1997?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.108.164 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Date
Talk:Line of sight

message: If a 6' person is standing at sea level, assuming a clear day, how far can one see an object at sea level, before the curvature of the earth obstructs the visibility?
:http://www.boatsafe.com/tools/horizon.htm (JavaScript required) lets you enter height in feet or meters and get the distance to the horizon.  According to that site, someone with their eye height at exactly 6 feet above the surface could see 3.297 (land) miles, which is 2.863 nautical miles or 5.306 km.  If it was a 6 foot person and their eyes were 6 inches down their head, the eyes would be at 5.5 feet, so it would be more like 3.157 miles.  According to http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question190575.html the formula to calculate the horizon from a height away from circle is \sqrt{h+2rh} where h is the height and r is the radius of the circle.  The Earth's average radius is 20,908,120 feet, so if you're 6 feet off the surface, you get \sqrt{6+2(20908120)(6)} which is 15840 feet, really close to 3 miles if you use straight line of sight from the eye to the horizon.  It's a little bit more if you're measuring how far across the curved Earth it is if you wanted to travel to it.  For metric folks using meters, that's \sqrt{1.8288+2(6372795)(1.8288)} or 4827.0 meters. --Closeapple 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To calculate when one will see a distant object over the horizon: http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwhorizon.html --Closeapple 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horizon