lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Palestinians killed by Israelis

message: This title is mind-bogglingly imprecise.  I'd move the article if I knew where to move it to. Koyaanis Qatsi, Saturday, March 30, 2002
There is a major problem with this article, especially when compared to Israelis killed by Palestinians. The problem (in case you can't tell) is that while the other article is very extensive, this article is very lacking and makes it seem as if that is the true proportion of death tolls since the beginning of the conflict.--Node 22:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On 22 Oct 2004, this article was nominated for deletion.  The results of that discussion were ambiguous and the decision defaulted to Keep.  However, based on the evidence presented and the edit history of this article, I believe that it would be better as a redirect than as a stand-alone article.  (Reminder:  Redirect decisions are reversible and therefore to not need a VfD consensus.)  For a record of the full discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Palestinians killed by Israelis.  Rossami (talk) 00:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  from VfD
Talk:Postmodernism

message: The statement that Chapman used the term "postmodern" in 1870 is unfounded.  See Oxford English Dictionary for documented early uses of "postmodern" and related terms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.1 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Origin of Term" Is Inaccurate 

message: made the following two edits:   , changing the first line from:
: Postmodernism is an intellectual...
to:
: Postmodernism is an anti-intellectual...
I explained on the the  editors' talk page that we require sources, and eventually the editor provided this as a source:
:
I know enough about Postmodernism to know that the above source is not representing Postmodernism correctly; however, I am not familiar with the WP:RS in this article.  I am hoping someone else who is more familiar with topic and the sourcing can explain the issues with the above source and why it would not be sufficient to make such a drastic change to the WP:LEDE.  I also don't know enough about the publication to know if that source is reliable.
My assumption is that the author Marcel Kuntz is not an expert in an appropriate field, e.g. Philosophy, Semiotics, Critical theory, Literary criticism  or Postmodernism.  His expertise is in biotech. GMO is mostly what the article is actually about.  The author seems to have no familiarity with the major issues with Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy) that go back to the Ancient Greeks and probably before them.  Although Nietzsche's work was the first thing we read in my Postmodernism class, anyone with knowledge of Ancient philosophy and Modern philosophy knows the problems of subjectivity, Metaphysics, and what can be known (Epistemology) with certainty.  These issues have been with us a long time.  Descartes pondered this. David Hume had a scathing attack on the use of inductive reasoning in Empiricism in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.  And Kant came up with a fantastic response in Critique of Pure Reason where he posits the Thing-in-itself.  All this long before Nietzsche's scathing criticism of Western morality in works like On the Genealogy of Morality, which caused Analytical Philosophers like Bertrand Russell to attack him and his works.  Based on my knowledge and the sources I have read, Kuntz does not seem to be familiar with any of this (or inexplicably omits it).  What I also find so puzzling in Kuntz's writing is that he makes no mention of Uncertainty principle or the subjectivity inherent in the Theory of relativity. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Author goes on about deconstruction at length, fails to mention Derrida once. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual vs. Anti-Intellectual
Talk:Reverse transcriptase

message: I am not entirely sure, but as far as I remember RTase added dTs opposite As in the RNA. I am not sure dUs even exist in cells. The ASCII diagram urgently needs to be replaced, IMO. The sectioning makes the article difficult to read. Most sections should either be significant expanded or merged into other sections or introduction. 
There are several factual errors as well. For example, RNA viruses are definitely not synonymous with retroviruses. True RNA viruses, such as picornaviruses (eg. Polio)), unlike retroviruses never go through a DNA stage and use an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase rather than a reverse transcriptase. In light of all this I am replacing the cleanup tag with a rewrite tag. Peter Znamenskiy 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this article is woefully organised and badly in need of some error fixing. Two subheadings called examples! Crikey. It's going on my to-do list -- Serephine ♠ talk - 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite tag

message: Cleanup done, citations replaced. Things still need to be done include:
*a diagram for the process of reverse transcription
*a diagram of the structure of a RT
*More information on the structure of RT
-- Serephine ♠ talk - 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant work! I will try to expand the stucture section when I get fulltext access to e-journals. Peter Z.Talk 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I'm not sure that the "double stranded DNA" part should be included in the RT definition. After all some RTs synthesise only one strand of DNA - cDNA. But maybe I'm biased as a person who uses it only for reverse transcription in vitro.
Independovirus (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  double stranded DNA? 

message: I think Reverse transcriptase and Reverse transcription may be merged, because they basically tell the same thing, the same phenomenon. Better have them together to get the whole thing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyhow, it's done now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: RT is present in all cells, healthy and unhealthy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:A8B2:DA0B:FF02:7105 (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RT is not specific to retroviruses or other "viruses"
Talk:List of political parties in the United States

message: The American Solidarity Party has run several candidates who have attained ballot access as independents, including in Arkansas for US president, and probably more states in the future. Is that sufficient to move it to the section of parties with ballot access, or should that require official party status in a state? (If so, I think that section should be renamed).
XP6287 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What qualifies as ballot access? 

message: Should the Working Families Party be counted as being represented in state legislatures? Like the forward party, it has affiliated members in the NY state legislature. DrBeat1 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2 Forward legislators declared their affiliation with the party. If you can find the same for some NY legislators, the inclusion of the 2 parties can definitely be discussed. Longestview (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working Families Party
Talk:Euler's identity

message: In my experience, e^{i\pi}+1=0 has little to no applications, but e^{i\tau}=1 is very important in solving complex exponentiation related problems. I wonder if this could be included in the article. NutronStar45 -- T / C 09:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. JBL (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate. NutronStar45 -- T / C 14:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:UNDUE (linked in JBL's reply). D.Lazard (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euler's identity expressed with tau 

message: We can prove e^iπ = -1 by Taylor series expansion.It will expand our perspective. Yuthfghds (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed in the relevant article Euler's formula.  --JBL (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving Euler's identity by Taylor series expansion
Talk:Euler numbers

message: "Can we have little more explanatiion for this number.. may be by some examples.. This si not very clear.." I removed this from the article. --Antonio.sierra 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Comment 

message: Help would be appreciated in watching the interwikis. Many interwikis lead to articles that were in fact about the number e (mathematical constant). They were removed with help from some other people from the Dutch wikipedia, but it would be good to watch any interwiki that is added to this page to see if they go to correct article. Thanks, LeRoc (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwikis

message: This topic is not actually the primary one associated to the phrase "Euler number".  For example, if you query Google Scholar, you will see many hits for Euler number coming from topology (Euler number of bundle, Euler characteristic, etc.).  Comments?  --C S (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation needed 

message: I am not very familiar of the notation used in the sum over partitions section. Can an expert may the notation easier to understand or at least reference the notations used? Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davikrehalt (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone clarify the sum over partitions section? 
Talk:Jaroslav Foglar

message: Please add to the list of his books.
Would you mind translating some of the titles? olivier 15:07 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
:I think that translating "Stínadla" as Shades is error. Stínadla means part of city, where in middleage were prisoners hanged and beheaded. Stít=behead. Robin_WH 22:26 Jul 23, 2008 (CET)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.179.75 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Books
Talk:Polarization (waves)

message: What is the factor Q in this part of the article? 2A02:A463:2848:1:B877:7C1B:4DDD:B31C (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transverse EM-waves 

message: Usually, Wikipedia articles read like they are really an article but this article reads like it's a paper, with lots of uses of "we", like "as we have shown". Is it important, should this not be in this case "as shown above", etc.? Dan Dart (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see WP:PRONOUN. Articles should not be written in first-person.--Srleffler (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First person plural language
Talk:Scanline rendering

message: Just curious, I'd like to heard from anyone on the reason nintendo decided to go with hardware 3d scanline rendering in the Nintendo DS. I had long considered the technique dead for realtime.
Even with floating point framebuffers, deep shaders, etc, the modern zbuffer seems to remain the weapon of choice.
I know that sony experimented with scanline rendering on the cell during the PS3's development, and I think they concluded it could not compete on power:price with modern GPUs. 
Regarding the E&S ESIG stuff, i gather the EARLY machines did not have framebuffers. I would be suprised if that was still the case, given how much they help absorb overload, changing image-generation cost from scanline to scanling ...
... further: i just discovered later ESIG's used a hybrid approach .. sounding like Quakes' software renderer! 'list priority' for static scenery, then z-buffering for moving objects.
Can anyone shed any further light on this ?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walter bz (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in nintendo ds & realtime generally 

message: Now I'm confused about the relationship between Scanline Rendering and Z-Buffering. The beginning of the article says "[Scanline rendering] can be easily integrated with ... the Z-buffer algorithm", but later the article says "The main advantage of scanline rendering over Z-buffering is ...". Are the two algorithms exclusive or can they be implemented simultaneously?
thejoshwolfe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejoshwolfe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanline Rendering and Z-Buffering 

message: The following commentary was in the section Comparison with Z-buffer algorithm; it may well be correct, but does not belong there.
*(This section is misleading, because it implies that Z-buffering and scanline rendering are mutually exclusive, which is not the case. Z-buffering is primarily a method of ensuring that occlusion between objects is calculated correctly, and is often used in conjunction with scanline rasterizers. Maybe this section should be removed, because Z-buffering isn't an algorithm to contrast with -- rather it is an augmentation to scanline rasterization.)Eaglizard (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Commentary
Talk:Edmund

message: I'm not sure why this article and  were ever split, as this remained a list of people named "Edmund", while additional people named "Edmund" were listed on the given name page. I took the liberty of unilaterally merging the two. The original split was done 7 years back and there wasn't a large edit history on , nor were there many links to  in other articles. — fish storm (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging this article with {{No redirect|Edmund (given name)}}
Talk:Debian

message: It includes non-free firmware in the installer. Is this already mentioned? Alohaidled (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if these links
https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171742/https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20231102171923/https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/10/msg00001.html
are already mentioned in the article or now, but some information may also need to be changed to reflect the changes in the policy of Debian.
I hope I'm using the talk page correctly.
I do not yet know where I should place this information about the policy change in Debian.
Other users may know where the best place in this article is to place the references.
I think near the top changing
"Since its founding,"
to
"Since its founding till 2022,"
And putting the links in a "ref" may be a way to show the change.
Though there may be a better way to link to the change.
Other Cody (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but that's not a proper synthesis. Debian distributed an install image with proprietary firmware long before 2022, and the FSF's disavowal of Debian also existed long before that date. "Since its founding" may not be accurate, but "until 2022" is definitely incorrect. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it to a better synthesis that talks about how Debian generally follows FOSS principles but includes some proprietary software. Dexcube (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer free software/open source? 

message: I think mobian section on this article should be a new article on its own Sarangem (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobian 

message: Latest version as of 2/13/2024 is 12.5 (not 12.4) 27.110.206.46 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debian latest software version
Talk:Miles Davis

message: The opening notes of "Dig," Miles Davis's contrafact on "Sweet Georgia Brown," are inscribed on his headstone.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  melody of "Dig" on Miles Davis's gravesite 

message: His gravestone says ‘Sir Miles Davis’. Was he knighted. 86.156.2.208 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: probably just a way of showing respect. Like how you call people "sir" in completely informal situations. Rateb4isik (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravestone 

message: Another optional full name of Miles Morales, who atypically has the last name of his mother, Rio Morales, rather than of his father, Jefferson Davis (brother of the Prowler)
 
הראש (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be original research as Morales never goes by "Miles Davis". It seems very unlikely that anyone would be searching for "Miles Davis" in the expectation of finding Morales Grachester (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation  

message: Should Fontana (or Capitol) be listed as one of Davis's labels? My understanding is he released Ascenseur pour l'échafaud on Fontana, but he had contracts with Prestige, Columbia and Warner. And if Capitol is there, my guess is Blue Note and Debut should be added as well. It feels like there should be more or less, but I don't feel confident enough to boldly edit. TlonicChronic (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label
Talk:Amway

message: An FTC ruling states that AmWay was founded in 1949 as Ja-Ri Corporation and that its name was changed to AmWay in November 1963. 
This information ought to be updated. 2600:1700:1310:7CC0:BCA4:99AE:802F:CBFA (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding date is inaccurate 

message: Change the first sentence: 
Amway (short for "American Way") is an American multi-level marketing (MLM) company that sells health, beauty, and home care products.
To:
Amway (short for "American Way") is an American direct selling company that sells health, beauty, and home care products.
Sources for the change:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#cite_note-Xardel-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#cite_note-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#cite_note-4 Nkrasinski (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: why? MLM seems to me to be more specific and informative as direct selling can use both single-level and multi-level marketing Cannolis (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023 

message: The sentences: "Amway has been investigated in various countries and by institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for alleged pyramid scheme practices. It has never been found guilty, though it has paid tens of millions of dollars to settle these suits."; are incomplete and misleading because this section does not include that the FTC already established that it is not a pyramid scheme through the In re Amway Corp. ruling in 1979. One needs to read the entire article to know about that, but the doubt is already seeded. To be fair, mentioning the FTC in the article's header should also include the corresponding outcome of that process. Otherwise do not mention it and let the reader go through the article to know about the FTC investigation and the results. Finally, the comments about the "FTC" and the "...paid tens of millions of dollars..." together, imply that the company paid to the FTC in 1979 which was not the case. 24.114.71.102 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Redaction
Talk:Viral copyright license

message: Not bad.  One down.  Now, how do you cover the use of the GPL (clumsily) to cover patents, as at openpatents.org (where 15 so far have been released, mostly in image processing?), or other patent pools run by consortia, corps universities or governments?  
Do you want that as a side note here or in "viral patent license" - if so then "viral trademark license" is going to need to be added for symmetry, and discuss things like Java and X/Open and POSIX, which require extensions to the standard to be integrated into the test suites once the consortia agree.
----
Yeah, there should be some coverage of those things, but maybe not right away.  The terms and the culture clearly came out of the free software movement, and so the others should be described in terms of that.  For example, openpatents should have its own page, and should simply note that it uses patent licenses with features similar to those found in the GPL, etc.  There should probably be some overall IP-licensing discussion that points to various specific pages.
Let me think about it.  --LDC
----
This should be merged with copyleft. The claim in the first paragraph, that "other" copyleft licenses are not viral, is wrong. The concept of copyleft is inherently viral, and I don't think there are licenses which are viral but not copyleft. AxelBoldt 01:52 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
This article was started early in Wikipedia's history, but represents the most invented and poor language I've seen, not to mention POV.  good laugh. should probably be deleted. --71.161.220.206 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:420 (cannabis culture)

message: In my area --- Phoenix, AZ --- this is known as "National Weed Day" and any references to, or uses of, "420," and even the date of "April 20," are rather inconsequential and barely mentioned in passing.  Even today's [April 16, 2020] "Arizona Republic" newspaper (p. 1C) had an article titled "Where to celebrate National Weed Day in Phoenix" {my emphasis} with "420" and "April 20" only mentioned three times.
I put out a monthly informational Block Watch flyer in my neighborhood which includes dates of importantance for that month.  To get those dates, I go to the respective month's article here at Wikipedia; and, I did not use the listing of "420 (cannabis culture) (international)" because I did not know what "420" meant --- non-"culture" people that I've talked with had no idea about this use --- and the additional 'tag' of "(cannabis culture)" I took to mean that this was some kind of 'event' for an extremely specialized/'limited' group of people, not for the public in general.
So, to me, the current article title plays to a smaller group as compared to "National Weed Day" which, I think, would play to, and attract, a much wider audience.
If I had seen "National Weed Day," I would'be included it in my flyer.
As such, any thoughts/comments about possibly modifying or changing the article's title?
Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title should stay as it is. As non-american I had no idea what this was about and why this number is often banned from mentioning in YouTube chat groups, only that it is supposedly a drug reference. This article gave me the information I searched for in a few seconds also it is about the general use of the number 420 in this context, not especially about "National Weed Day", I probably would not have found this if it was titled as such. I don't know what the average reader will search for though, but imho either "National Weed Day" should forward to here, or be a whole own article (if there is enough relevant information to write about it). --Wulf 21 (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: An editor recently removed two links to the official Waldos site: an inline reference (the group's first mention in High Times) and an external link at article's end.  Most all sources reinforce the claim that the Waldos spurred the association of 4:20/420 with cannabis culture. Given that fact, I believe WP:EL and WP:RS support such uses of the Waldos site. I think the two recently removed links should be restored.  How do others view the official Waldos site? — HipLibrarianship talk 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a commercial site that clearly does not meet WP:EL guidelines. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN. Besides, the group's first mention in High Times should be sourced to High Times.,  not some commercial site peddling t-shirts and memorabilia.OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  official Waldos site 

message: * Cannabis in the restaurant industry
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New related page