lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Axillary bud

message: this is that bud which arise from side of the plant  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.15.109 (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The most recent edit may not be factually accurate.  I did a quick search for academic articles based on axillary bud size, and couldn't find anything like a mathematical representation.  I may be off base though, can someone with a better background in botany take a look?
Percival's Razor (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is very strange claim. I, as plant physiologist still do not understand what parameter and why, they try to define, by counting what (?), the size of bud based on midrib? That is their relative size or what? Even if such a thing would exist it would have extremely marginal use and without further explanation it has no encyclopedic value /in my opinion) Reo + 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I cannot evaluate whether the claim is correct, but since it is unreferenced and potentially "original research" (see the signature "This is Rohit Krishna's own contribution" at the bottom of the page), which is not allowed at Wikipedia, I think it should be removed. Fileunderwater (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what's already been said and have my owns qualms with the material so I've gone ahead and removed it.TypingAway (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info?
Talk:Heung Yee Kuk

message: My goodness, we need more work on this article! Cossaxx (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed! 
Talk:High Island (Hong Kong)

message: I've moved the title back to High Island as this is both the common and official English name (e.g. these government sources: 1, 2). Citobun (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Island vs Leung Shuen Wan
Talk:Roberts cross

message: I'm not incredibly familiar with the Roberts Cross Operator but reading through the article, 
Shouldn't
z_{i,j} = \sqrt{(y_{i,j} - y_{i+2,i+1})^2 + (y_{i+1,j} - y_{i, j+1})^2  } 
be
z_{i,j} = \sqrt{(y_{i,j} - y_{i+1,j+1})^2 + (y_{i+1,j} - y_{i, j+1})^2  } 
???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.10 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now who's gonna fix it? --Volyrkr (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this right? 

message: I removed references to the Costella operator per discussion at Talk:Sobel_operator#Costella_Kernel. — Control.valve (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costella operator
Talk:Broadcast Music, Inc.

message: I don't know what the stuff means but I don't want to delete it in case it's actually worth keeping!!!  77.97.86.125 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone was obviously using an internet translator from on language to another. I believe the language is German. We'll just need an editor who can translate the important parts of the comment. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ,translate it back! use this atleast you'll have a rough idea what it means. Suede67 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suede, you could have done that! I know about the translators; I prefer Google. Whoever left a bulk (like a couple pages' worth of German ranting and raving, it has been deleted. The Wikipedia is not a place to air your personal concerns, warnings, (and schizoprenic?!?) complaints. If I am wrong, it's in the history here, feel free to revert; but I just checked into two different translators and it's the same.  I'm not even sure it's the same BMI that the unregistered non-signer was mad about. (There is a fairly large disambiguation page for BMI). --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF?? 

message: http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=731
Curious wording and atypical format, but the site www.bmi.com is unavailable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.17.7.132 (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OFFLINE
Talk:Article 45

message: In the first part of the "Controversy" section, the phrase "having extracted a promise of a timetable of reform" appears.  Who extracted from whom?  
More importantly, the use of "promise" is problematic.  The "Decision of the Standing Committee...[blah blah blah] on Issues Relating to Universal Suffrage" adopted at the 31st Session of the Standing Committee of the 10th NPC on 12/29/2007 details the method for amending the electoral laws of the Basic Law.  This method requires the Chief Executive to report the proposed amendment to the NPC, for those amendments to be passed by LegCo with a 2/3 majority, and for the passed amendments to be approved by the NPC (item #2).  If this process does not happen, the Basic Law states that the current process for elections will continue to apply (item #4).
This decision, therefore, does not legally constitute a promise of universal suffrage in 2017, and it is doubtful that the NPC meant it to be a promise.  It does, however, allow for universal suffrage as early as 2017.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plastichorse3 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing and/or misleading wording 
Talk:Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office

message: Please refer to Talk:Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, Sydney#AFD / Merger. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETO Sydney's AFD/Merger

message: User:Citobun: Noted that you reverted my edits to the captioned section. Given that your edit summary "Whitewashing / removes information" is quite vague, and your revert removed multiple points contained in the edit, I am not sure which part of the edit you object to specifically. 
I invite you to clarify this so we may have a discussion on how we can refine the edit.
Thank you Carter00000 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of Edit in "History" Section
Talk:Bandleader

message: The organization of the list of bandleaders by "Nationality" in this article seems a bit arbitrary and perhaps not very useful?  Would a different organization be better?  For example, "by era" ("pre-1900", 1900~1909, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, etc.?) or perhaps simply an alphabetical listing ignoring nationality or era?   It's also not clear if the nationality headings listed should refer to the nationality of the band or to the nationality of the bandleader.  For example, Toshiko Akiyoshi led a North American big band for 30 years (10 years in Los Angeles and 20 years in New York) but she, herself is a Japanese citizen - although she has resided in the US for over 50 years.  Pugetbill 16:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Is Jimmy Hendrix really a bandleader (in the context of this article)?  Or Bruce Springsteen for that matter? SpinningSpark 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there appears to be a discrepancy between "band leader" and "performer with backing musicians. Perhaps, by genre or decade, as suggested above might be a better way of organising the list. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that organising this page makes sense.  But there is still the problem that every group is a "band" and has someone it can call "leader".  You will end up with a list of every rock and pop group that has ever been if the definition is not limited in some way. SpinningSpark 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Agree. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seriously agree!  It looked like a 1940's Big Band fest there with the United States "bandleaders" on the page, with a sprinkling of Jimi Hendrix, Geddy Lee, Howlin' Wolf (now c'mon, really!) I was attempting to follow the parameters of the content of the article-- it saying that usually the bandleader would have the band named for him or her.  So I added Derek Trucks and Dave Matthews, but I still feel like that page is just far too wacked out coming and going to redeem it as it is!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What counts as bandleader 

message: Page seems a mess, with the list in no order that I can recognize.  Unless someone has a better suggestion, perhaps alphabetical order within sections. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should separate the bandleaders into a List of bandleaders or List of bandleaders by nationality.  Or we could just remove the whole thing.  RJFJR (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Four years later, and "remove the whole thing" appears the wisest course of action. -ProhibitOnions (T) 15:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization
Talk:Hong Kong order of precedence

message: After someone is appointed a Judge of the High Court or above, he or she will cease according to custom to use the postnominal letters indicating his/her rank within the Bar. Thus, no Judge of the High Court or the Court of Final Appeal use postnominals like QC or SC. Moreover, because the rank of the Justice of the Peace (JP) is technically a judicial office, judges also cease to be Justices of the Peace upon appointment. I have removed all the JPs and QC/SCs after the names of senior judges.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hker1997 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules of Postnominal Letters 

message: Technically, and always in practice, the Chinese central government officials always enjoy precedence before HK officials on visits. Colipon+(T) 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese officials 

message: I think theres one major omission in the pre 1997 section. The Monarch is missing from the list. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre 1997
Talk:Engine Arm

message: We seem to have started with one Article (Engine Arm Aqueduct), and drifted into making the Engine Arm the main data, resulting in a change of name.  The currect data suggests that a split into the two areas would be better. Then...
:#The EAA page could be improved with Template:Infobox AqueductNavigable, keeping the two aqueduct pictures (one in template, and one on main page), and having the coordinates for it. Links to EA would be added
:#The EA page would lose the coordinates (not suitable for a long structure), and a couple of small paragraphs. Links to EAA would be added
If no one has any complaints, I'll have a go in a couple of days. Ronhjones (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Article? 

message: I am not sure what to do about the dates. The infobox shows 1825 for the construction of the arm, and 1830 for it being navigable. They are unsourced, as was the material that mentioned 1830 in the text. Weaver & Weaver suggest that the arm was navigable from when the pumping station was built around 1790. This is also mentioned by the Industrial Tour ref. It makes sense, because how else did the coal get delivered? Industrial Tour suggests the Arm was extended by Telford in 1825, and that the aqueduct was installed in 1828, and this date is supported by Historic England. Why would you put in a navigable aqueduct unless the Arm was navigable? I cannot find a source for the 1825 and 1830 dates in the infobox, but am unsure about deleting them until I know where they came from. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't have any recollection of where the dates came from. My sources were library books and my naivity at the time did not lead me to recording the references. I may well have been swayed by the Telford modifications without any understanding of what was there before. Please put in the dates and facts that you have. Thank you for the great efforts you have put into improving the BCN articles.  Oosoom Talk  11:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Lead and infobox updated to reflect the dates found. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do the dates come from
Talk:Microfilament

message: This needs to be simplified for laypeople learning biology.
69.248.145.222 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anyone knows the relation between microfilament and the term "stress fiber" (redirects here)? (130.243.161.203 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stress fibers are a specific cytoskeletal organization of actin monomers. These fibers are involved in cell shape a structural functions of the cell. Actin monomers form long polymers, which attach to the plasma membrane at focal adhesions. Contraction of the actin stress fibers allows the cell to exert tension on the substratum, an important part of controlling morphogenesis. Formation of stress fibers and focal adhesion complexes are a key regulatory event in cell growth and cell movement such as migration and invasion."--Tycho (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress fiber 

message: As far as I understand treadmilling involves elongation in the barbed end and shortening in the pointed-end, so that the filament in total moves. Since both processes are energetically favorable, this means force must be generated. This is also the explanation I've heard for one of the steps in cell crawling. The energy ultimately comes from the ATP hydrolization. See Alberts for all that.
related to this - for some reason the paragraph about ATP hydrolization appears in the article AFTER this section but it seems to me it should appear BEFORE.
Any comment?
Dan Gluck (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No mechanical force generated by treadmilling???
Talk:List of top 100 Major League Baseball home run hitters

message: Unless someone has a reason to keep both lists, I think we can probably get rid of this list and just stick with List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters. I'll do so in a couple days if no one responds. CredoFromStart 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete: I agree. Better to stick with the 500 than the 100. More extensive. --Valley2city₪‽ 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No "keep" responses; and this just seems redundant. I've added the redirect. CredoFromStart 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 100 - delete/redirect?
Talk:Harry Watson (actor)

message: I have no idea who edited this page for deletion 30 seconds aft eri started editing it, but i'm just hacking on it now -please slow down.
Harry Watson was a WWII Combat photographer, a friend of Joe Rosenthal, Howard Hughes, and basically invented the methodology of shooting film footage and getting it ready for broadcast in one day for TV reporting at KTTV.
you can see some of his photographic work here
http://homepage.mac.com/gsf/popp_1/popp_1-Images/0.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/gsf/popp_1/popp_1-Images/2.jpg
here is is with the rest of the cast from Mr Smith Goes to Washington on the bottom stair, 3rd from the left
http://homepage.mac.com/gsf/popp_1/popp_1-Images/5.jpg
i would hope that this would make him notable and worthy for a Wilipedia article - i will be building a rather large gallery of his work on this page (mostly WWII combat photographs)... once i figure out how to get pictures onto Wikipedia.
I am not in any way complete - but I hope that the page as it now sits is good enought to be left as a placeholder until i can do more work on it.   Contact me if not.
The other steve jobs 17:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments
Talk:Phalloidin

message: As far as I know there are no known antidotes to Phalloidin. So I am posting this in hopes of generating some further speculation on this topic. Two points of attack that I suggest, not being hampered by much knowledge, 1)diels alder reaction with maleic acid with its indole ring, or 2)dosing with some low m.wt. component of actin. The toxicity may be intractable, these are not suggested as treatments, just unqualified academic discussion to inspire qualified academic interest.
71.114.183.105 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Antidotes

message: The compound box at the top right of the page depicts the hydroxy proline involved in the structure as a trans-hydroxy proline.  The "chemical synthesis" section, however, depicts the hydroxy proline involved (in all steps and the final structure) as being a cis-hydroxy proline.  From what I understand the "chemical synthesis" section is correct, it should be a cis-hydroxy proline, but whatever the answer is this article needs to be internally consistent with the stereochemistry of Phalloidin.199.94.1.205 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Stereochemical inconsistency
Talk:Company style

message: Original name is Enlish, but yes, characters for the Hindi please. Johnbod 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can smell ChatGPT from far away Synotia (moan) 12:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 97% chance it's AI generated according to GPTZero Synotia (moan) 12:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree. This segment is extremely annoying, full of platitudes, with little substance and no citations. Worst of all, it completely ignores colonial hierarchies in the formation and evolution of the Company Style. I don't think this segment can be fixed. It needs to be deleted. Felix Fiedler (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy
Talk:Kaifong associations

message: You reverted my edit that added the word "Cantonese" before "term kaifong (街坊)". You stated that the "term is not Cantonese, only the particular romanisation used here is". But that's not the case. In standard mandarin "街" is pronounced "jiē, "坊" is pronounced "fāng" and the vast majority of Chinese speakers will read the work "街坊" as "jiēfāng". While there are various older romanizations in Mandarin, none them will render the word 街坊 as "kaifong". Kaifong is the Cantonese expression of the word "街坊", not an alternate romanization. Do you have an alternate edit that clears up this point?  Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for writing.  The problem does not therein lie.  The term is a Chinese one.  It is not unique to Hong Kong.  It is not unique to Cantonese.  "The term" is 街坊, not kaifong or jiefang; they are merely English Romanisations of regional pronunciation.  None of this is news to you but will be to many readers; what I'm doing is explaining that the objection to your edit is on semantic terms, i.e. when we say "the term", we must surely be speaking of the original Chinese, not one particular Romanisation.  Your edit tends to the meaning that the original Chinese is a Cantonese term.  It isn't.  The Romanisation the subject of this article is.  Let me attempt a compromise edit.  sirlanz 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to suggestions.  I speak no Cantonese but speak some Mandarin and to me "街坊" is "jiēfāng" - and obviously most Chinese people will read it as such. "Kai" would most likely be "开". Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantonese?
Talk:Myelin basic protein

message: Hey all, I have added a section on structure that discusses the intrinsic disorder of MBP as well as its post-translational modifications. I included several new citations, and especially relied on work by Boggs and Harauz. There is a lot of info I was working to sift through, so feel free to clarify or adjust as needed. I also included a figure I created showing the relationship between degree of citrullination of net positive charge of the protein.Vazi97 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure section 

message: Is copy & paste the way things are usually done? Not entirely identical, but close. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=4155
Seems curing disease is as fast as hand-pipetting will allow. Someone needs to automate this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtanto (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function section 

message: Are there any variants for the gene for myelin?Flaviusvulso (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Variations
Talk:Mike Brooks (journalist)

message: I recently re-wrote the page and it should not now violate any copyright. I thought up all the words myself with help from sources but all the work is mine. -Strudders 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, that solves the copyright issue. I've removed the deletion notice now. ~Matticus TC 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD
Talk:Garance Franke-Ruta

message: Does this person really satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BIO? Has her work at TAP "been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Has "she ... been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," and if so, was that coverage "substantial"? Simon Dodd 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Guided Speech IVR

message: The equivalent article Guided speech IVR was nominated for deletion with a resolution to redirect to Interactive voice response.  This article should either be left intact as a redirect or nominated for a speedy delete.  I will leave it as a redirect, but it should NOT be reverted to a content article without discussion.  This would go against the discussion and consensus reached on the equivalent article. Calltech 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Caponata

message: Ingredienst OK, but method is not Sicilian - we cook every vegetable separately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.49.142 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  method 

message: Can someone transwiki this to Wikicookbooks?
== Recipe ==
A classic recipe uses the following ingredients:  
* eggplant
* bell pepper
* celery
* tomato
* olive
* caper
* pine fruit
* extra virgin olive oil
* vinegar
* sugar
* salt
== Preparation ==
* Dice the eggplant and slice the pepper and fry it partially in a pan, and put it aside.
* Dice the tomato, and get rid of its tomato juice, and chop the celery up and then mix it with all the other ingredients which you should then cook for 20 minutes.
* Then add the pepper and eggplant and finish cooking it. Dissolve some sugar in a dessertspoon of vinegar and add this to the cooking mixture.
  
Add salt and pepper and serve cold. 
  
A variation uses the addition of fried potato.JFD 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipe 

message: "Today, caponata is typically used as a side dish for fish dishes and sometimes as an appetizer, but since the 1700s it has also been used as a main course." This doesn't make a lot of sense, as someone who doesn't know about the dish, it would seem that the whole line should be removed? 217.150.114.76 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dish Use 

message: To add to etymology section: this term might derive from capone, a Sicilian word for a fish (called lampuga, the mahi-mahi, species Coryphaena hippurus) that was once included in the dish. This theory suggests the dish was originally served with this fish, and eventually the name stuck even after the fish itself disappeared from the recipe. Another theory points to the Latin word caponium, which referred to taverns frequented by sailors. The idea here is that caponata was a common dish served in these establishments. Yet others suggest it might derive from the Catalan language, or from the Greek word capto meaning "to cut," referencing the chopped ingredients in the dish. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology