lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of Leica cameras

message: What is the point of this list? Surely, Wikipedia is not a product catalog. -- Egil 11:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On April 6, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  The result was keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Leica cameras for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: A year later, this has survived VfD; and is exactly what it says it is. As no cleanup is apparently required, I am removing the tag. 'Night. --Mashford 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bother All That 

message: All year span information is incorrect, by a wide margin (perhaps by sabatoge?). For example the Leica IIIg is listed under "Date" as 1965–1968; actual: 1957–1960. 
   
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth1066 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page should be re-researched and edited or removed
Talk:David Bloor

message: "David Bloor strongly disagreed with the ANT camp that human and non-humans should be treated in an equivalent manner"
It's not entirely clear from this sentence which side he did come down on.
Should it be
"David Bloor strongly disagreed with the ANT camp when they argued that human and non-humans should be treated in an equivalent manner"
or
"David Bloor strongly disagreed with the ANT camp, arguing that human and non-humans should be treated in an equivalent manner"
?
Reply from a reader who has read Bloor and the ANT literature: The first version is the correct meaning; this clarification has been made in the article.
:Yes, although I don't think Bloor's main objection is them being treated in an "equivalent manner"; he more fundamentally objects to treating non-human influences at all in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In "Anti-Latour" he argues that to do so is a back-door way of bringing "objective truth" back into science and therefore objectionable, since allowing for the influence of non-humans on the content of scientific knowledge can be interpreted as admitting that scientific knowledge is in part influenced by an external-to-humans "real world". Bloor argues instead for a pure social-constructionist viewpoint in which the content of scientific knowledge is analyzed exclusively as the product of human actors. --Delirium (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:SdKfz 223

message: Why are we stuck with two versions of this minor page, where's the discussion? GraemeLeggett 14:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "twoversions" tag isn't part of this page, but is on template:WWIIGermanAFVs.  Since that page is protected, I'll have to ask an admin to remove it. --Carnildo 18:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Versions
Talk:Ndau people

message: Vijfhuizen C. (1998). The People you live with. Gender Identities and Social Practices, Beliefs and Power in the Livelihoods of Ndau women and men in a village with an irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe. (Wageningen: Grafisch Service Centrum van Gils B.V). --Viriditas  | Talk 12:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference request
Talk:My Pride

message: Selling tickets? --Wetman 12:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is the English name of the song Proud of You or My Pride?--Yuje 11:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English name 
Talk:Katz Group of Companies

message: I've moved Katz Group Canada to Katz Group of Companies to reflect better the corporate structure. Katz Group Canada and Snyder Drug are both owned by Katz Group of Companies. Kevintoronto 12:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Sikorsky (crater)

message: The crater is named after *which* Sikorsky? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky — RJH 19:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Fifth Monarchists

message: There is an inconsistency in Wikipedia between this page and the Cavalier Parliament.
:This Page
:: This threat was realised when on January 6, 1661, 50 Fifth Monarchists, headed by a wine-cooper named Thomas Venner
:Cavalier Parliament page:
::In December 1661, parliament was challenged by the Fifth Monarchy men under the command of Vavasor Powell and Thomas Venner, who led a succession of revolts. These rebellions were initiated as an anticipation of the arrival of Jesus to claim the throne.
The dates on the English Restoration were taken from this page so if this page is wrong please fix that page and Thomas Venner as well.  Philip Baird Shearer 13:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UCT)
::Having contributed to this article with many others, I do not understand the instructions posted above. If something is wrong, then fix the error rather than post vague, unsigned and lengthy comments. MPLX/MH 15:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised with the news of a plot against the King’s person and my Lord Monk’s; and that since last night there are about forty taken up on suspicion; and, amongst others, it was my lot to meet with Simon Beale, the Trumpeter, who took me and Tom Doling into the Guard in Scotland Yard, and showed us Major-General Overton, where I heard him deny that he is guilty of any such things; but that whereas it is said that he is found to have brought many arms to town, he says it is only to sell them, as he will prove by oath.
Robert Overton was a fifth monarchist who had been locked up by Cromwell in 1656 for plotting insurrection with his regiment which was in Hull at the time. He should not to be confused with Richard Overton the Leveller. So it is possible that this incident is linked to Venner if so it is unlikely that the January revolt came as a total surprise to the authorities. Philip Baird Shearer 09:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of the Venner revolts

message: I suggest that the article is moved from Fifth Monarchy Men to Fifth Monarchists as was not just men who were The Fifth Monarchists eg Anna Trapnell. Philip Baird Shearer 13:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Fifth Monarchy Men to Fifth Monarchists

message: Spellwrecker also weirdly somehow redflags the rightly spelt word "millenarism"
All highly suspect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.183.116 (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Now corrected. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird that the word "millenarism" is neither seen nor linked to in the herein article!!!
Talk:Gold Bond

message: If this commercial product can't be given a cultural context, it will remain an advertisement and not encyclopedic. --Wetman 14:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: I would strongly suggest renaming this back to Gold Bond, which would allow for other Gold Bond products to be discussed, rather than focusing on a single one.  At this point, there simply isn't enough data for anything more than a stub article here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. There are multiple Gold Bond SKU's; I've got 6 sitting on my desk right now (they're a client). There's Gold Bond Medicated Foot Powder, Gold Bond Medicated Foot Spray, and a host of others. Qmax 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a couple of days.  If no one objects, I'll have the move made. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article
Talk:Wong (surname)

message: There is a proposal to create a precedent that names are not encyclopedic. Articles about names regularly show up on various deletion pages and are summarily deleted. Perhaps - since you've been working on an article about a name, you hold a different opinion that you'd like to express.  Please do: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames SchmuckyTheCat 17:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Please discuss this before blatantly deleting it.  The top part of the last name in Chinese is referred as "GRASS HEAD" and someone says its TWENTY in the article?  If they spoke any Cantonese Chinese, they will know that when people are asking for each others last names and when it comes to "YELLOW WONG" they will ask if its the "Grass Head Wong 黃"  or "Three Stroke Wang 王" .  And the farm field in the middle of the character is referred as "Big Stomach Wong 黃"  in order to differentiate with the "Three Stroke Wang 王".  For example in English, people will ask how someone spells their last name like "Johnson with H" or will it be "Jonsson with two S" or "Jonson with no H and one S" when all three surnames are pronounced the same.    Neoking (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Peachy. Source it. — LlywelynII 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grass Head and Big Stomach Wong

message: Removed an external link section that (a) dealt exclusively with Huang rather than "Wong" and therefore was in the wrong place and (b) seemed highly unencyclopedic (chat rooms and amateur genealogies hosted on dead geocities webpages.) In any case, it's available in the history if someone wants to go through those sites and see if there's any encyclopedic material to be salvaged directly for the page. — LlywelynII 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed External links 

message: Copying sb else about some rare names. The claim was that  was another "Wong", but Wiktionary says the Cantonese romanization should be Wang. If that's right, please move it over to the right article. — LlywelynII 22:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Double-checking

message: Although Huang (黄) is pronounced "Wong" in Cantonese and certainly romanized as such, there are lots of people who render 黄 as "Wong" in English who aren't Cantonese, such as Joe Wong, a Korean-Chinese from Shandong. I think it has become a conventional spelling in English now, kind of like "Kim" for Korean (although it would be "Gim" in the new romanization). You see it in subtitles also for people with that Chinese surname that likely didn't pick it themselves. Shrigley (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conventional, not Cantonese? 

message: How does that make sense? Wong is not one surname, it corresponds to different Chinese characters. How can someone do such a pointless survey? --2.245.221.58 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  6th most common surname in Singapore
Talk:Efficient estimator

message: * In the first line of the Relative Efficiency section, the "prime" of T' isn't clear in 2 browsers - IE and Opera.  I can only tell that it's there by looking for it.  I wonder if a better variable can be used, such as R. 14:18, 5 April 2005 User:63.202.187.6
* It was showing up fine for me in Mozilla, but T1 and T2 are much clearer. Cburnett 19:01, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
* Umm... I'm not much of a statistician, but what's an 'unbiased statistic' as mentioned in the first line of the intro?  Shouldn't it say 'an unbiased estimator T of a statistic theta? 152.16.230.146 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries

message: The reference - Arcones M.A. "Bahadur efficiency of the likelihood ratio test" preprint - is just not good.
I read first 2 pages, and found 2 mistakes:
page 1, 2nd last sentence, should be "...versus H1: theta in Theta1", rather than "... not in...".
Page 2, 3rd sentence, "For theta1 in Theta1 we would like that the p value converges to 0 as fast as possible." p-value is not defined for any theta in Theta1.
so why do we use this reference??? Jackzhp (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: a reference

message: I did not make this merge proposal (Fgnievinski did) but I think it is the right thing to do. Neither of these articles is too long, and efficiency (statistics) has extensive coverage of efficiency of estimators, which largely duplicates efficient estimator. I don't see why they should be two separate articles. Wikiacc (¶) 16:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Lairg

message: I imagine Lairg is on the A836 road? Laurel Bush 14:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that'd be right. Not sure if this link will work properly, but it shows which roads run through, or lead to Lairg... namely the A836, A839, and the A838. — PMcM 23:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Even by Highland standards does Lairg really qualify as a town or has ever been one? Ok it's a service centre for a wider area but the centre of the village is the parking for recycling bins on the loch shore.
This link on the council website calls it a village . Any source for calling it a town?--JBellis (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  town?
Talk:Three-way circuit

message: this is a howto guide on mains wiring which doesn't really belong here anyway and it is EXTREMELY US centric. Therefore i propose redirecting it to the switch article which has more generic information on multiway switching in a non-howto style. Any objections? Plugwash 09:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or move to wikibooks. - Omegatron 13:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you can find a suitable place in wikibooks sure (it pisses me off when people add that tag but give no indication of where in wikibooks it could go) but in that case i think this should still be a redirect to switch with one of the sisterproject templates used to link to the page in wikibooks. Plugwash 16:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect to [[switch]] article
Talk:Inverse element

message: Instead of considered first the most common uses of "inverse element", the article focuses to the widest generalizations of the concept, which are rarely considered outside the advanced study of pure algebraic structures. It results the article is not only too WP:TECHNICAL, but readers, specially those who come here through one of the many links to , do not find here what they are looking for.
I have recently rewritten the lead for summarizing what should be in this article and providing the basic information to the readers, and I'll start to rewrite the body of the article. However, this is not my highest priority, so it is possible that the article will have a strange structure for some time. D.Lazard (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic tone 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Invertible element and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Jay 💬 16:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Invertible element" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:9/11/01

message: From WP:RfD:
* 9/11/01 → September 11, 2001 attacks. This redirect was created by user:bogusstory as a redirect for 9/11 open questions, a page he created that is now up for deletion. 9/11/01 now redirects to September 11, 2001 attacks. 9/11/01 is too ambiguous for this usage. 9/11/01 to me means 9 November 2001 and could also be interpreted as many other things. Jooler 10:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It specifically states in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), under Incorrect date formats That dates should NOT be expressed in purely numerical format except for ISO (YYYY-MM-DD). I should also point out that under the the Wikipedia namespace arrangments whereby a '/' represents a level change, this page is actually a subpage of 9/11 which is a subpage of 9. Jooler 07:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of style
Talk:Gran Turismo (automobile)

message: This article and Grand tourer should probably be merged. // Liftarn
I don't agree.  People will probably come here for the game Gran Turismo a bit more than Gran Tourer, and Gran Tourer would be abusing the terms if it were to have a disambiguation link to Gran Turismo. Stooffi 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the merge tags from this and grand tourer.  I actually think that there's a case to be made for for a merge, but the tags were many months old with litte comment following a poorly directed discussion.  If there's interest in a merge, I suggest after reapplying merge tags starting a "Merge" section on one of the talk pages and directing there from both merge tags.  See Help:Merging and moving pages. ENeville (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Decemviri

message: Possibly "scribendis" instead of scribundis? Possibly "litibus" instead of stlitibus? --Wetman 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin

message: I know we give the EB the benefit of the doubt since we cribbed almost all of our early articles from it, but 
* B. G. Niebuhr, History of Rome (Eng. trans.), ii. 309 et seq. (Cambridge, 1832)
* Theodor Mommsen, History of Rome, bk. ii. c. 2, vol. i. pp. 361 et seq. (Eng. trans., new ed., 1894)
* Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 605 et seq., 714 (Leipzig, 1887)
* A. H. J. Greenidge, Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time, p. 40 et seq., 263 (Oxford, 1901)
* J. Muirhead, Private Law of Rome, p. 73 et seq. (London, 1899)
* Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, iv. 2256 et seq. (Kübler).
are sources at least a century outdated and have nothing to do with the article if no one has verified and reused them separately apart from the EB gloss of their contents. Kindly reinsert them into the article once they have been independently reviewed and used as a source for material in the running text. — LlywelynII 07:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion

message: The   use of this term is only the first sense, which is either never or almost never given as a full decemvirs-in-charge-of-writing-the-laws-with-consular-imperium. We shouldn't make it look like that's the case. Decemvir by itself always or almost always refers solely to them and the others need distinguishing... including possibly being shunted to separate articles, since they have nothing to do with the Decemvirate except having a similar name. — LlywelynII 07:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article could be transformed as a simple list of decemvirates, and the part about 451-450 moved to a new article (the other way around is also possible considering the number of links that would have to be changed). T8612 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *My 1st thought was to simply have the content here pasted on a new page called (say) Decemvirate (Twelve Tables), or perhaps the default Latin name decemviri consulari imperio legibus scribundis could be used instead. Avilich (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the number of links, the overwhelming amount of those seem to be tied to Template:Ancient Rome topics. Change that, and most will fall into line. Avilich (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

text: As for the other 3 other decemviri groups here listed, 2 have articles already, so this can be turned into a dab page. Avilich (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any opposition I went ahead and did the split. Avilich (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?
Talk:Simeon De Witt

message: The opening sentence says "Simeon De Witt (1756-1834) was the Geographer and Surveyor of the Army during the American Revolution and...".  It may seem obvious to the author, but this really should say which army (there were, after all, several armies involved in the american revolutionary war). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which army
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-04/In the news

message: In the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't we note that "columnist Dave Brooks" is administrator and User:DavidWBrooks? (but not me) David Brooks 16:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea. Sure we should, and done. --Michael Snow 17:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Anna Sewell

message: hi ppl.  does anyone think there is much symbolism in black beauty?  do you know what it means?
: isn't it just a story about a horse that gets treated badly by people? What symbolism do you see? GraemeLeggett 11:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The house in Great Yarmouth, close to the entrance to the big church, has black and white timbers and would look OK in a photo for this article. 80.0.98.55 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  House in Great Yarmouth 

message: The suggested merger of Sewell Park (Norwich) into the Anna Sewell article- can't really see the need for it. The park is notable as having a direct connection with the Sewell family, and a history all of its own. The park celebrates its centenary this year and has generated a lot of interest. I hope to visit and take photographs to add to the article. By the way the link is to the American Sewell Park. Northmetpit (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sewell Park article is about a park located in Texas. Here is the link to the Sewell Park, Norwich. I think both Anna Sewell and the park are notable enough to deserve an individual article. Plus, they each are about very different topic. A See Also link is quite sufficient in my opinion. Therefore, I vote no to the merger suggestion. GiuseppeMassimo (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger

message: Are we sure that Anna Sewell's last name was pronounced "/ˈsuːəl/"? This transcription was inserted by User:Omnipaedista on 1 April 2014. Omnipaedista is apparently Greek-speaking, although s/he claims a "professional" level of English. I (who speak English natively) would have thought the pronunciation "/ˈsjuːəl/" a bit likelier, and transliterations of her name into some other languages that don't use Latin script (including Greek, Omnipaedista!) strongly suggest that this is right. Perhaps somebody from Norfolk (Anna Sewell's old stompin' grounds) can confirm what the name's local pronunciation is, as that is the one that Sewell most likely used. I think "/ˈsuːəl/" is a North American pronunciation. Kelisi (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see  and . --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 2 is irrelevant. Henry Sewell was from the Isle of Wight, not Norfolk. The source for no. 1 is American, and therefore suspect where British pronunciation is concerned. I'd still like to hear from somebody from Norfolk. Kelisi (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:A Musical Joke

message: An earlier example (1772) for which he forget to attach a funny name: Symphony No. 21. It too is remarkably rough-sounding. When I hear it I suspect that someone managed to sneak it into the catalog after his death. Either that, or, even Mozart now and then fashioned a clinker. Twang (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. To me it seems stylistically reasonably Mozartian, although I'll agree that it's not quite as engaging as his twentieth. Therein lie the dangers of concluding a work's authenticity based solely on stylistic evidence! The autograph is extant (not signed, the title page contains the attribution to W. A. Mozart), so it's almost certainly Mozart's. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: see wikt:fair Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sym. #21 ?

message: See this — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Punetor i Rregullt5: See what? That link is of no use. Please compare what you entered here with the score at NMA: http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nma_cont.php?vsep=167&gen=edition&l=1&p1=223 . Your score bears no resemblance to the the published score, so I ask you to remove it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I'm so sorry, I'm a stupid, I have forgot to put the link. Click here. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your score is nothing like the one you point to on YouTube. I'm going to remove it. Please don't add it again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Music Notation''