lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Dyrrhachium (48 BC)

message: Tomorrow I'm going to give this article a big workover and add some references. Reichsfürst (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The second sentence in the first paragraph says "It was fought between Julius Caesar and an army led by Gnaeus Pompei who had the backing of the majority of the Roman Senate."  It should be: "...led by Gnaeus Pompey who..." Pompei should be changed to Pompey. The link is also wrong (the link currently directs to the page about Pompei the city).  Should be fixed to "Gnaeus Pompey" and be directed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey. 67.60.248.97 (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Danski454 (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018
Talk:Battle of Beneventum (275 BC)

message: The text says: "the Romans outnumbered Pyrrhus' forces" while the box ("strength") says the contrary. Which one is correct?--Proofreader 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Much of the article appears to have been directly copied from a nono-reliable source here.[http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A3533726} Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-london/plain/A3533726. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Text added when I removed the copyvio was that removed by the copy-paster. It was present in the article in this version. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: They run through the ranks of Pyrrhus which were thrown into disarray and, as a result, the Romans won the battle.[8]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.212.33 (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  they run....no....they ran 

message: The "Aftermath" section of this page states:
''
"There is no information about the number of troops deployed by either side or the number of casualties. After this defeat Pyrrhus went back to Tarentum and gave up the war. He sailed back to Epirus."''
This is correct. There are no primary or secondary sources for battlefield strength or losses for this battle, outside of the anecdotes about the elephants. Yet, the battle-box summary provides very specific strength and loss figures. Would strongly recommend this box be reviewed and the specific figures removed. Akaricloud (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties
Talk:Battle of Asculum

message: Come on guys, is this really to be classified as a Pyrrhic victory, just because Pyrrhus uttered those all to famous words here, it doesn't make it a Pyrrhic victory. The battle of Heraclea maybe, but here it was an overwhelming Greek victory . Abattoir666 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion
Talk:Battle of Aquae Sextiae

message: The Roman tendency to exaggerate the number of barbarians involved in a battle seems to have carried through to this article.  The Teutons, Ambrones, Cimbrii, Vandals and Harudii all came from the Jutland peninsula.  Given that only the Teutons and the much smaller contingent of Ambrones were involved in this battle a total headcount of 110000 is implausible.  The book 'The Barbarians - Goths, Franks and Vandals' (Malcolm Todd)makes a similar point - 'Armies of several thousands would have joined battle only in the course of a mass migration......'.  Another perspective would be to look at village sizes of the time - A typical village having 80-100 inhabitants, admittedly somewhat more if near the coast - 'Die Ersten Deutschen' (The First Germans - S. Fischer-Fabian).  A headcount of 110000 would have emptied 1000 villages.  Subtract from this the number of people left behind.  The Cimbrii, who parted company from the Teutones somewhat earlier, the Vandals and Harudii and one gets the sense that Jutland must have had a village every few yards!  Zooming into the Ambrones, one reads that they came from the island of Amrun (see last reference) - an island of some 40 square kilometers and five villages.  Bottom line: I would propose a 'combatant headcount of <5000'
HagenFranziska 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of barbarians involved in the battle 

message: Footnote #1 (actually the only footnote here) to St. Jerome's letter has the link "http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/letters/lette123.htm".  Apparently CCEL.org has rearranged their site, but by rummaging around a while, I found that letter: its new link is "http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXXIII.html". 208.66.124.31 00:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link
Talk:Sprue (manufacturing)

message: Content taken from Sprue (casting) after page move. Graibeard 01:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

message: I've merged the articles, the subject matter is essentially the same, just different materials.  There's not enough difference to warrant two articles. Iepeulas (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Sprue (casting) and this article 

message: I am puzzled, this description of sprue and runner does not match what I know from my career in injection molding.
See
http://imoldmaking.com/mold-making-2/mold-design/runner-and-gate/injection-mold-sprue-and-runner/
Minor terminology comment, injection molding does not use dies, it uses molds.  
IF you take the same block of metal and use it for die casting, it is then a die.
It appears that there are some similarities AND some differences between injection molding and die casting terminology????
Mhrreast (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology Differences?
Talk:Beverly Hills Unified School District

message: * Mitchell, John K. "Only One Incumbent Running in Beverly Hills : School Board Veteran Bows Out of Race." Los Angeles Times. August 15, 1985.
* Mitchell, John L. "Layoffs Proposed in Beverly Hills Schools." Los Angeles Times. January 23, 1986.
* "Beverly Hills : School Board Installation." Los Angeles Times. December 10, 1987. Westside Digest.
* "Beverly Hills : School Board Officials." Los Angeles Times. December 6, 1990. Westside Digest.
* Weinstein, Jerry (former BHUSD board member). "Beverly Hills School Board's 'Blunders'" (letter to the editor). Los Angeles Times. December 12, 1991.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible sources

message: Found this: http://www.bhusd.org/pdf/districtmap.pdf - It shows elementary school zones
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  District boundaries 
Talk:Cedar Springs, Michigan

message: I agree. Copying the info is just not cool. It makes the page look silly. Segelflugzeugwettbewerber 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad form  

message: I rewrote the section on the festival that was basically copied verbatim from the web site.  This will hopefully make the article seem more original and much less like an advertisment.  --Tjonp 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Flannel Festival
Talk:VISA (credit card)

message: "Interchange rate" part of Wal Mart law suit settlement (not law suit loss) is inaccurate, but maybe it's accurate enough for most people.  Visa has several dozen 'interchange programs', and each processed sale will qualify for one of these programs.  Each interchange program has a specific rate associated with it.  Some discount rates are lower than the percentages quoted in the article, but some are higher.  The article seems to suggest that post-settlement it is not possible to process a Visa card and pay less than 1.99% in total interchange + assessments + discount.  In fact, many merchants process cards for far lower than the rate described there.
I don't want to do it, but maybe someone should edit that article and remove the percentages. 204.58.233.6
:Somebody needs to clarify the issue for those of us who don't work for BankAmerica of Wal-Mart...  Trekphiler 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wal-Mart lawsuit

message: Should this article be placed at Visa International Service Association, instead of VISA (credit card)? As the former is the official company name, it might be better placed there. jareha 10:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article location

message: Anyone want to expand this section (all I and find right now is uk tradmarks, but I believe it was more global) MartinRe 23:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visa Condoms

message: Is there some obvious way to distinguish a VISA debit card from one that can only be used for credit?   — Lee J Haywood 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debit cards 

message: Has it always had two??
I thought it just used the 3 stripes
--David 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the logo change? 

message: Well, that snowballed. I came here from Pintel and Ragetti, following the VISA advert link at the bottom. I got there from Mackenzie Crook. Now I've just wikified the whole article, removed the wikify tag, used the Double image template on the two tiny logos at the top, and moved the prepaid card image. Wikipedia is amazing in what it can do to you once you get really involved... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: Diners_Club says that VISA was originally BankAmericard. This (and maybe other) historical information should be made available here.--Gkklein 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Background 

message: I'm not sure who can do this, but please look into it. I'm trying to see who IP 75.21.128.103... Vandalism is not and will not be permitted on Wikipedia to make that clear. I'm not an admin but someone should look at possibly blocking the IP (unless it's a school, etc.)
Weatherguy1033 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other
Talk:Jeff Weaver

message: This article needs at least a cleanup, and very probably a complete rewrite because of very low quality.
Well, now that he is an Angel I'll be sure to work on it. :) - User:Wtstoffs
As of January 26, Weaver had a choice. Cardinals (playoff appearances, championships) or pot smoking. Guess which one he is now leaning toward.
Another greedy indulgent ball player (a la Edgar Renteria) bites the dust.
How about you shut your mouths? Yesitsnot (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Keanu Reeves of Baseball  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.205.32 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames 
Talk:Demarest Hall

message: Hi there. The information is not original to Enon; the copyright is mine. His page properly credits my Demarest in Exile History Lesson page, from which the text appears to have been lifted verbatim. (The Exile site itself is pitifully stale, but the historical info is still worth something.)
That said, it's completely okay with me. It's great to see Demarest get a home on Wikipedia, and all Demarites (current and in Exile) should be proud. St. Chris 19:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to unduly toot my own horn

message: Well! There's a lot to be done here. I'm gonna have fun with this. Anyone else here with me? St. Chris 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward
Talk:SS Wairarapa

message: Should Dumarton be Dumbarton?  It seems likely, but I'm not sure enough to change the article. --Joel7687 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this, you're absolutely right. I'll correct the article. -- Avenue 03:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumarton?

message: what does the ss stand for?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.167.3 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Steam Ship (screw-driven). -- Avenue (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ss wairarapa
Talk:Battle of Azaz (1125)

message: Please check the coordinates for the battle's location, the ones in this article are the presumed ones for the Battle of Ager Sanguinis. Also, the coordinates for the city of Azaz in this wiki may be incorrect (try to follow the geolinks on that article to see what I mean). Thank you, Santosga (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates
Talk:Battle of Sheriffmuir

message: There was a request from an IP editor of the article page for the qualification of Neil Oliver whose book A History of Scotland is quoted several times in this article. I have that book and in the information about the author it just says that he trained as an archaeologist at Glasgow University and the Wikipedia article about him says that he qualified as an archaeologist but does not quote a source. In any case I don't think that it is a mandatory requirement on Wikipedia to include the qualification of the author whose book you are quoting as a source.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil Oliver

message: The casualty figures are suspiciously exact, given the much rounder figures for the numbers of combatants. In any event, they would be almost impossible to calculate to single digits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties
Talk:Battle of Preston (1715)

message: This is also claimed for The Battle of Bossenden Wood which took place took place on May 31, 1838. Talskiddy 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last battle on English soil?

message: It sounds as though the Highlanders were only one part of the Jacobite army. Who were the others? Valetude (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition of rebel army 

message: Robinvp11 has deleted my reference to arson in the lede, when the article makes clear that both sides were burning down houses. If he thinks they weren't, he should delete that part of the article. The lede is meant to summarise the article, and I feel that my draft was appropriate. 
His claim that the page as a whole 'needs more work' is, of course, quite justified. Valetude (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting 'arson'
Talk:Battle of Cromdale

message: Before the song  lyrics this says: Nevertheless, Jacobite propagandists declared the action a victory for the royalist forces
Shouldn't that be defeat?--JBellis (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this make sense?

message: This is claimed by Roy Williamson here. Here, in the comments section, some theorize that the other battle may have been the battle of Auldearn. It doesn't make the lyrics much less fanciful, but it helps to explain why they seem to differ from the reality so wildly. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two battles squashed into one"?
Talk:Battle of Smolensk (1812)

message: Whilst I found the article very interesting, particularly given how often foreign troops attacked the city, I've reworded it, keeping all the original factual content and adding additional links, e.g. co-ordinates, the cathedral etc. and correcting possible mis-tranlations. 
Please feel free to correct any errors.  JRPG (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy/Edit 

message: To be factually correct, we should consider using this flag for the Russian Empire in the InfoBox.</br>    
Until 1852, the Empire used this flag (the Czar's Standard) as the national  flag.  See this  (although their dates are not 100% correct) and also look here as well as the flag illustrated in the Russian Empire wiki article.
Farawayman (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The file "Estandarte Imperial de Rusia.png" is nonsense. It's the modern coat of arms, slightly modified. Wadim (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the PNG is incorrect, but is the claim that the Czar's Standard was the national flag correct?  Farawayman (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, at that time there was a banner for ceremonial purposes. The problem is that we don't know what banner(s) the army used. I think the tricolour is better for identification. It's older (this  flag is from 1668), the merchant navy used it as the national flag, and there were a lot of flags based on the tricolour, like this one: left|50px from 1806. Basically there wasn't any "de iure nation flag", but the tricolour was "de facto nation flag".Wadim (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag for Russian Empire

message: What's up with the whole "wakiki fam" mess going on in the last 10 revisions? 
"The Battle of Smolensk, Wakiki Fam and 130,000 Russians under Barclay de Tolly, though only about 50,000 and 60,000 respectively were actually engaged."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amontadillo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 
Talk:List of simple Lie groups

message: I've changed such expressions as a+b to a + b, with spaces on both sides of the "+", and similarly changed such things as p≤q to p ≤ q, for the sake of legibility and conformance to conventions.  E.g.:
:Cn II (n > 2, n = p + q, 1 ≤ p ≤ q)
In subsection headings, I've changed capital initial "c" in "compact" and "complex" to lower-case "c"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style concerning capitalization of initials in section headings.  (I hope that split is not, unbeknownst to me, someone's name.)
In such things as Cn in a number of cases I've italicized the subscript n; generally on Wikipedia one should italicize variables in non-TeX mathematical notation, but one should not italicize digits or punctuation -- all this matches TeX style. Michael Hardy 02:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Are we defining a simple Lie group to be a Lie group which is a simple group, or as a Lie group with a simple Lie algebra. In the latter case (which I think is more typical, despite our article on simple Lie groups) a simple Lie group can have a discrete center and the sentence
"Any simple Lie group has a universal cover, whose center is the fundamental group of the simple Lie group."
is not true. -- Fropuff 05:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Center of a simple Lie group

message: Is it really zero? (i was looking for the rank of SO(7)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.212.56 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rank of B<sub>n</sub>

message: * Should this section not rather be named as "List of real simple groups", and should not a similar section "List of complex Lie groups" be before, where the cases ABCDEFG would be listed? 
* If I am not wrong, the list is complete only "up to covering" or something like that -- should this not be written more precise?
Thanks for a comment, Franp9am (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or does any covering has a nontrivial center (and here, only groups with triv. center are lister)? Franp9am (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Real and complex & Uniqueness 

message: This page used to be ordered by type (A,B,etc.), and is now divided into category (real, split, etc.)  Personally, I find the old ordering much more useful, as I often (used to) use this page to determine all of the real forms of a particular type.  Please rethink this decision.  (The change appears to have taken place between the [] and [] versions, oldids 540495424 and 540515391, both dated 26Feb13, at 04:36 and 06:00, respectively.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.106.209 (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: I don't understand why we need this list needs to exist separate from simple Lie groups (surely readers interested in simple Lie groups want to see the list). Also, there are a lot of overlaps between the two articles. I have therefore proposed a merger. -- Taku (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[simple Lie group]]
Talk:Converse (logic)

message: If this receives no objections within a reasonable period of time I am going to redirect "converse" to the article "Conversion".  The reason is that the article "converse" deals with the product of the method of inference "conversion".  The two are not the same, conversion being a process which may require other rules, and the converse simply the product of conversion.  The article "converse" also deals with truth tables and implication, which conversion is not.  Conversion is a rule of categorical statements, not implication, and validity for categorical statements of traditional logic utilizes Venn diagrams and not truth tables.  This is in reference to philosophical logic.  Anything other than this may require an article on the converse (mathematics).Amerindianarts 01:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion and converse

message: Thought I would document this. Article says "If I am a bachelor, then I am an unmarried man" is logically equivalent to "If I am an unmarried man, then I am a bachelor." ***Wrong***. Being a bachelor requires 1) currently unmarried *and* 2) never married. A divorced or widowed man is unmarried, but *not* a bachelor, because was previously married. I will try fixing this up with a better example. AAABBB222 (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'bachelor' example is wrong 

message: Why is there an image containing only text as an example? It's a bad example: it looks like an example for relational symmetry, not logical implication; the second line is not true and might confuse a layreader; having it as an image instead of plain text hurts people that depend on screen readers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.111.234.39 (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The image belonged to the "converse relation" section, I have moved it there.  I will leave it to others to consider the rest of the comment (about accessibility). --JBL (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange example image