lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Shogen Okabayashi

message: I would cut down on the external links (usually two or three is ideal) especially since the article is nicely referenced.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm.  Just a suggestion but I think the article is approaching WP:NOT#REPOSITORY  (call me conservative) Peter Rehse 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names.  In any case it should be consistent.  In some places it was Sogaku Takeda and in others Takeda Sogagu, same for Ueshiba.  I think Shogen Okabayashi is the correct order but not sure - what is his family name?Peter Rehse 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: Done. I confirmed his kanji name by this page. --Nightshadow28 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese script
Talk:Canyon (satellite)

message: Appears to have bee passed by 2020 HS7 at a distance of 1200km. Closest known approach of an asteroid to a geostationary satellite. RS haven't named the satellite yet mind.©Geni (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: OPS 7329
Talk:KH-12

message: One of the first KH-12 launches failed and blew-up on the pad at Vandenberg AFB, on April 18, 1986; announced on evening news. Note from personal files. LanceBarber 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I took it out because that launch failure is listed on the page for KH-9.  Can document that it really was something more sophisticated than the KH-11s that were standard at the time? Whosasking 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't understand... took what out of where? LanceBarber 20:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this revision I removed the mention of the April 1986 launch failure (and its reference,  this database, which lists the launch failure as a KH-9), from the KH-12 article and added a similarly brief mention of USA-144, launched in 1999.  I am of the opinion that information about the 1986 explosion (if we have anything more to say about it) should go on the page on KH-9.  Do you disagree? Whosasking 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nope, understand now, thanks. LanceBarber 13:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch failed 

message: This page contradicts the KH-13 page.  Were USA-161 and USA-182 KH-12s or KH-13s?  Also, I find it odd that neither page even contains the word "Keyhole" ... That's what everybody knows the satellites as, and isn't that what KH stands for?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettland (talk • contribs) 08:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict with KH-13 page 

message: There seems to be some concensus that the official Keyhole designations ended with KH-11, and that the later big IMINT satellites were basically advanced modifications of the original KH-11 design. Therefore it might make sense to merge the articles on KH-12 and KH-11  (similar to CORONA, which summarizes the design evolution from KH-1 to KH-4). After the merger, KH-12 would become a re-direct to KH-11 Kennan. Misty (satellite), Enhanced Imaging System, Future Imagery Architecture, etc. would not be affected. Comments please at Talk:KH-11_Kennan -- Enemenemu (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals to merge KH-12 and KH-11 articles
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brian New Zealand

message: Category talk:	3
Category:	36
Image talk:	6
Image:	75
Mainspace	1096
Portal talk:	45
Portal:	74
Talk:	293
Template talk:	10
Template:	109
User talk:	318
User:	446
Wikipedia talk:	32
Wikipedia:	265
avg edits per article	2.42
earliest	08:53, 9 July 2005
number of unique articles	1160
total	2808
2005/7 	10 	
2005/8 	21 	
2005/9 	36 	
2005/10 	13 	
2005/11 	36 	
2005/12 	250 	
2006/1 	70 	
2006/2 	96 	
2006/3 	117 	
2006/4 	370 	
2006/5 	377 	
2006/6 	410 	
2006/7 	208 	
2006/8 	246 	
2006/9 	79 	
2006/10 	242 	
2006/11 	81 	
2006/12 	146 
Edit count as of 02:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Combined Space Operations Center

message: I came accross this page from a NATO-related document and get a little confused. This article doesn't really explain if JSpOC is american or NATO. It also seems to be written by a member of the organisation since the Unit Emblem part states: The orbit and star is brought from the former 614 SOPS and also shows our tie to the original Army Air Corps. The our here is disturbing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.241.213 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality ?
Talk:Antaeus (magazine)

message: Not sure why the internal link to the Wikipedia article entitled Yannis Ritsos won't work. I have set it up as if it were an external hyperlink instead, for now. Chris k 02:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

message: According to this Google Books page, it would appear that this magazine's name is correctly spelt Antæus, and not *Antaeus. Should this page perhaps be moved? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling
Talk:Radioactivity in the life sciences

message: This page could use a lot of work.  It would appear as if this page was written from a a single perspective without a good overall grasp of the subject matter... Bform (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: biology is an odd term as it means both biology (zoology+botany+microbiology+ecology) but also all the life sciences (biotechnology, biochemistry etc) as ment here. Anyone else thinks it should be changed to Radioactivity in the life sciences? like Fluorescence in the life sciences --Squidonius (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  change name to Radioactivity in the life sciences?
Talk:Henry J

message: This is very poorly explained (if at all).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: a "dip" to the beltline, windshield, and rear window

message: (Comments moved from mainspace by DeLarge 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments 2006
Talk:Canntaireachd

message: My thoughts: 1) We need INLINE citations so we can see which source supports which statement. 2) The references section lists a couple of sources (Dwelly and Collins), neither of which I recognize from my own study of piobaireachd and canntaireachd. I have added a couple of citations to modern sources used by musicians. But there's more to be done here. 3) The "Explanation of..." section is in my view much too detailed. There are very few people that are qualified to give that section, as written, the sort of knowledgeable review that's necessary to ensure accuracy. Better to be more concise and give very specific inline citations so that the reader can consult the original source. This is a very technical subject. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not checked The "Explanation of..." section. Too deep a dive I vote for deleting most of the details in that section. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After some thought, I have deleted most of the section "Explanation of..." on the grounds that there were no inline citations. Such a long and specific explanation almost certainly came from some published work. To use large blocks of someone else's published work risks being accused of copyright violation. With that risk in mind, I decided to be bold and delete a lot of text. In its place I put in much briefer text which touches on some of the same points, backed up with plenty of citations. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations, sources, too detailed 

message: — Assignment last updated by CBFraoch (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Music and Dance of the Gael
Talk:Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet

message: hey!!!!
im a student who is deaf, and this is cool place to find the information in this site. I found my questions about Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.136.102 (talk • contribs) 00:32 March 28
Parts of this page are lifted directly from http://www.gallaudet.edu/x229.xml - entire sentences verbatim. Suggest someone at least rephrase the offending portions of the article ("Gallaudet found the Braidwoods unwilling to share knowledge of their oral communication method. At the same time, he was not satisfied that the oral method produced desirable results." - there may be more, this bit I just happened to have stumbled across as I read a little bit about this guy). 
Word up wikipedia.  98.96.118.102 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Charles Ammi Cutter

message: Information is cited here about Cutter's invention of an early keyboard and screen interface.  It's the first example in the video and cites an invention he supposedly made around 1883.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72nfrhXroo8&feature=related
71.199.104.170 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early networked communication invention (with keyboard)
Talk:Minister for Defence (Australia)

message: Did Malcolm Fraser start as the Minister for Defence in 1968 or 1969?
In the article on Malcolm Fraser, it says:
:in 1968 he was made Minister for Defence
In the article on Minister for Defence (Australia), it says:
:36 | Malcolm Fraser | 1969-1971 | Liberal Party of Australia 
Could someone please correct whichever article is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan O'Donnell (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcolm Fraser, Minister for Defence 

message: Most Ministers of Defence were MHRs, not MPs, because they were in office before the title was dumbed down. Grassynoel (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postnomials
Talk:Walter Hood Fitch

message: Hi everyone, it's disturbing to read how personal some of the comments above have become.  Please remember that this page is only for discussing the improvements to the article.  If you have an issue with another editor, please take it up on their own talk page.  I have collapsed all the comments which don't relate to improving the article (see WP:TALK) to avoid further disruption.  
Now, please go and have a nice cup of tea and then stick to discussing the policy.  Papa November (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be nice 
Talk:Pushing Ice

message: "The concept of a spacecraft being propelled by relativistic forces is also seen in the novel Earth by David Brin, published fifteen years earlier."
What does this mean? Are they referring to the Rockhopper's drive, which appears to be some sort of fusion powered ion drive? OK, still theoretical, but not really relativistic. Or is it a reference to Janus' propulsion system, which is unexplained but appears to drag nearby objects along with it. In which case, this idea is at least as old as Arthur C Clarke's 'Rendezvous With Rama' (18 years before Brin's book), and probably even older. What is meant by a 'relativistic drive' anyway? Gravitational drive might be a better description (and is just about as meaningful!).
Thinking about it, 'Rendezvous With Rama' is a better comparison; Reynolds just takes it a step further - what if the exploration team never got away from Rama? Halmyre (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was struck by the similarities with Rama. That is not to say I think the book is in any way a copy of that story, it is a very different story indeed. 66.75.66.240 (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes and Similarities to Other Works of Science Fiction

message: It has been a couple of years since I read this but I see some statements in the synopsis which dramatically disagree with my memory of the details of the book...
* "Rockhopper, a spacecraft used for mining cometary ice." -- I remember this as local asteroids, not comets.
* "Musk Dogs that will infect the colony" -- I remember nothing about any infection, the Musk Dogs were basically going to trick the colonists into giving them permission to access Janus.
* "Pictures from her ship reveal the structure to be a Torus the size of a planetary system" -- Just because the center was missing/destroyed does not make the structure a torus. I remember the megastructure being described as a semi-random matrix of tubes. My personal impression was that it was sort of like a 3-dimensional airport, with thousands of interstellar runways facing in various directions, each designed to receive one or more Janus like craft from a different star system. 
Anybody have the book handy to confirm these points ? 66.75.66.240 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't remember if it's comets or asteroids - the title of the novel would suggest the former, but the name of the spaceship suggests the latter. I agree that the Musk Dogs are only interested in access to Janus, they're not out to 'infect' the colony. And regarding your final point, I seem to recall that the megastructure was described as a sort of tubular latticework, sounding (to me) similar to the framework for a large reflecting telescope. Halmyre (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors in synopsis
Talk:Edde, Lebanon

message: I have incorporated some information into the Wikivoyage article on Mount_Lebanon. As an active editor in Wikivoyage,  I don't think there is enough in Edde to warrant a standalone article, and have removed the "move to Wikivoyage" tag. Ground Zero | t 13:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying to Wikivoyage
Talk:Adam Freeland

message: This reads like it was constructed by a manager or agency.  Articles on Wikipedia are meant to be encyclopedic, not advertisements. -- 71.68.60.157 02:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bronstein

message: I made this disambigulation page because I believe it is equally likely for people who might type in 'Bronstein' to be looking for either David Bronstein or Braun. I believe it is inappropriate to make a redirect for this reason.
--I 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many Bronstein's, see link. --AndrejJ 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:List of WAZA member zoos and aquariums

message: There are a few links here to ZOOM. Can someone who is in the know here update that link or add more info to the ZOOM disamb page? Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Donlammers (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZOOM 

message: The list is not nearly complete and the only reference is a dead link. This article needs serious updating or might be best off discarted entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.21.217 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grossly outdated and incomplete
Talk:Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 1882–1974

message: I'm fairly sure that East Ham was a county borough before being merged into Greater London, and West Ham was definitely a county borough.  This makes me a bit suspicious about the rest of the list given for 1965!  From memory the merged entities (with their status) were listed in a schedule to the London Government Act; perhaps someone can check the details?  Silverhelm 02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what the problem is? The list includes both non-county and county boroughs (three of which were included in London Boroughs in '65). This article deals with incorporation of boroughs, not their elevation to county borough status, which has an article of its own. Lozleader 11:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed true.  county boroughs and non-county boroughs were both municipal boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act, although sometimes the latter term was used in a restrictive sense to exclude county boroughs; until the term "non-county borough" became popular  Morwen - Talk 12:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: County boroughs were also municipal boroughs?  Well, I've seen from elsewhere that you've both studied various aspects of local government in the UK, so I bow to the experts.  Does this mean that all county boroughs received charters?  Anyway, I feel that as things are worded, the article is misleading (or at least ambiguous); I can't be the only person to think of county boroughs as being essentially unrelated to municipal boroughs.  My impression (for whatever it's worth) is that most of the "new" county boroughs were "promoted" urban districts, rather pre-existing boroughs.  Perhaps things should be made more explicit?  Silverhelm 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, of the county boroughs formed after 1889, all of them were already municipal boroughs, or were successors to municipal boroughs.   The process generally went urban district -> municipal borough -> county borough.  Morwen - Talk 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors re creation of Greater London
Talk:Twenty Ninth Street (Boulder, Colorado)

message: Twenty Ninth Street is not a "mall" as one normally understands that term, even though it is built on the former site of Crossroads Mall, which was a true mall with indoor pedestrian walkways.
Twenty Ninth Street is best described as a collection of small strip malls and large big-box stores, separated by streets which carry automobile traffic.  Yes, in the days of Crossroads Mall there were no motor-vehicle streets that traversed this site, but now those streets exist.  These are not city streets, but instead privately-maintained streets, maintained by the Macerich Company.
If Twenty Ninth Street is not precisely a mall, then what can we call it?  I chose the same terminology used on the official Twenty Ninth Street web site, i.e. "retail district."
Paul 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Precisely a Mall
Talk:Hanton City, Rhode Island

message: A few points about the theories of Hanton City's origins.
The idea that it couldn't have been runaway slaves is not well founded. Slavery did not end in RI till the early 1800's. RI did not abolish slavery in 1652 it only restricted it and even those restrictions were not enforced. In 1715 a law was passed legalizing slavery as it was a major industry for many in Newport. RI began gradual emancipation in 1784, but that usually meant the captive holder did not have to free his captive until he/she was 21 or 25 years old. See <http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm> 
As for the ability to procure building materials or having supplies for day to day, there were a great many settlers without the convenience of such goods and they did just fine.
Most towns kept pest houses for times of epidemic where any with such communicable diseases were housed.
The theory of loyalists is a real stretch as many RI loyalists went to Canada. It is doubtful that a group of loyalists would have gone into hiding in a remote village outside of Smithfield.
The most likely explanation is that it was a community of free-Africans. Free-Africans did not have the same rights and freedoms as whites and it was not uncommon for them to establish such communities. This would also explain why there is no written history or mention in the local histories. There would have been no interest (at the time) in documenting such a community, and there may have been very few whites who ever ventured there. This would also explain why there are only a few stones (in the Smith plot) belonging to that area. Free-Africans usually could not afford to buy headstones for their loved ones, field stones were more likely as well as small stone piles. There was also a fairly large free-African community in Smithfield at the time. The 1790 census shows 82 free blacks and 5 slaves. 1800 the number of free balcks drops to 46 ( with 1 slave) which could indicate that many of the free-Africans formed their own community outside the reach (or interest) of the census taker.
Barkhamstead Lighthouse (part of Barkhamstead CT and Danbury Quarter (part of Winchester CT) are two good examples of these communities. See <http://www.skyweb.net/~channy/BarkLight.html>
Capittsley 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 13

message: #Support. I support any proposal that moves U.S. cities in the direction of disambiguate only when necessary. --Serge 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support Votes -3

message: To facilitate moving towards consensus, please consider a "Not Yet" vote in the section above, including suggesting a change to the proposal that would allow you to support it, rather than an all-out "oppose" vote.
#Oppose  Once again, don't see the point.  Another attempt at changing the policy, since all the previous attempts have failed.  Hey, keep trying!  Eventually, the opposition will forget to vote! Phiwum 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose Votes -3
Talk:Pilottone

message: The previous version described a special head with its gap oriented 90 degrees from the audio head(s).  From familiarity with the physics of magnetic recording, I understood this to be unworkable.
I did some web searching, and found a page on Nagra (http://chambinator.free.fr/english/kudelsus.htm) that clearly explains a system that does indeed make sense, and which I took to be factual.
I have revised the Technology section, in accordance with the information I found.
Etudiant (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to Technology section 

message: I did some searching and couldn't find any authoritative conclusion for one way or the other. Is there a "correct" and citable spelling? Binba (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilottone, Pilotone, Pilot tone, or PILOTTON??
Talk:The Dark Design

message: Clemens' ship's name is the <I>Not for Hire</I> and not the <I>Mark Twain</I>. --46.115.101.109 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clemens' ship, the Mark Twain.
Talk:Pardon My Past

message: This page used to be for a Charmed episode. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of comments below

message: Hey. In the trivia section of this page, you refer to Phoebe having met past Leo and how he had to have been dead before this, but in fact, Phoebe never met past Leo. Anton glamoured himself to look like past Piper's former lover,past Leo, but we don't know where he is or what happened to him. For all we know, he could be dead by that time, so therefore, present Leo could have been born already. Charmedone889 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charmed trivia
Talk:Möbius inversion formula

message: There seems to be a notational inconsistency. The first section says that if g = f * 1, then f = \mu * g. But if we substitute the second equation into the first, we're getting g = \mu * g * 1, which isn't what's supposed to happen. The point of Mobius inversion is that \mu and 1 are inverses in the incidence algebra of the natural numbers, i.e. under Dirichlet convolution. So the theorem should read: if g = f * 1, then (by applying \mu on the right), g * \mu = f * 1 * \mu = f (since \mu and 1 are inverses).
I tried to make this notational change but I can't seem to get the wiki syntax correct - when I changed it from \mu * g to g * \mu, I got an "unknown parse error". Maybe someone else can clean this up? Thanks.
(edit: also, I forgot to sign. The above edits by 169.229.3.78 (talk))
:: If d | n, then (n/d) | n so convolution is commutative. --Jerome Baum (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left versus right convolution
Talk:Edward St Maur, 11th Duke of Somerset

message: Why the article is it named St Maur? It was his son who changed his name to St Maur in 1862-1863 when he was created Knight of the Garter and Earl St Maur of Berry Pomeroy. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Maur?
Talk:Edward Seymour, 8th Duke of Somerset

message: If Edward is baptised 17th January 1694 - then his birth is Dec 1693 or Jan 1694 - Not Dec 1694 or Early 169586.153.56.24 (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth 