lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation

message: I was casually reading the page, and then I saw a bulleted list of four people. And then I thought, "Hey! Are they the candidates?" But then I remembered, "Interested candidates may fill in an entry form on Election candidates 2005 or its subpage(s) starting on 00:00, 2005 June 7 (UTC)", so, of course, they're the people who sent the message!
Had me a bit confused there for a second. ;-) Ambush Commander 19:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry for your confusion ;-) It is we, the election organizers. The original message has one more line who we are, but Danny seemed to omit it. I don't know why. And candidae will be accepted on meta, not here ;-) --Aphaea* 05:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the current version, I wish it is improvement. --Aphaea* 16:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. If I were picky, I'd replace the comma right before the list with a period, but otherwise, that ending fixes things. Ambush Commander 19:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
It still looks confusing to me (maybe it would be better to say above the list that they are "signing" it? Like "Signed,") --cesarb 16:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulleted four names look like they're candidates!
Talk:Viktor Abakumov

message: :There is very little in the main article about Abakumov's back-ground. The reason he was a supporter of Beria is not clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.209.191 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little 

message: Did Viktor Abakumov have a wife at any point? There is next to nothing about his personal life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.88.243 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage? 

message: wikipedia.pl: He was of Armenian (and Jewish ?) origin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.177.92 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian 

message: The men was never a spy or intelligence official or officer!!
The men never was outside USSR. Ones in Berlin may 1945.
So why the info box SPY??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPY INFOBOX ???? 
Talk:Vic, Spain

message: Is the fact that fuet is "delicious with Pa amb tomàquet" really encyclopedic? -- Jmabel 01:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've deleted this. Llull 17:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Is Vic perhaps the Catalan equivalent of Spanish Vich (Latin Ausona, ?=Osona) ? Fastifex 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking etymologically? Probably so. Vic is the capital of Osona. - Jmabel | Talk 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Vich" is not really Spanish, but rather an old Catalan spelling. The current spelling rules of Catalan come from the Normes Ortogràfiques published by the Institute of Catalan Studies in the early 20th century and which were largely the work of Pompeu Fabra. This process of standardisation resulted in the elimination of etimological h's which were not sounded, both after consonants and between vowels. This is why names like "Vic", "Reixac", "Montjuïc" or "Maó" have lost their etimological h's in modern Catalan. Such h's are still retained in surnames, like "Blanch", "March" or "Bosch". The standardised forms of Catalan placenames didn't become official until the advent of democracy some 30 years ago. This is why some people wrongly assume that "Vich" is a Castilian Spanish spelling; during Francoist times Catalan writers would use "Vic" while the official name used in Spanish remained as "Vich". But the correct pronunciation was still /bik/, even in Spanish. Since the beginning of the 80s "Vic" is the only official spelling, regardless of language. Gelo 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vich?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved.  – robertsky (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 April 2024
Talk:Alexandre Alexeieff

message: I've changed Alexeieff's birthplace to Kazan from Ufi to reflect the preponderance of online sources. Anyone who has better resources is welcome to contribute.Dhodges 01:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Source for the birthplace Kazan are his obituary in the Times and his biographer. -- €pa 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I second. -- €pa (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Alexeieff spent seven years in a sanatorium due to damage caused to his lungs by chemicals he used in xylography, etching and aquatinting."
Months seems more likely. I don't have either of the sources listed to hand. -Dhodges (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sanatorium 

message: Alexeieff's daughter was kind enough to write me an email and clarified a number of points as well as editing a few mistakes. I'm not really sure how to reference her emails but she provided a lot of extra details as well as giving explanations for a number of facts in the text. RE: Sanatorium, she said that it was 2 years--which has been fixed in the article.Koshpeli (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: contributions from daughter
Talk:Julia (given name)

message: who on earth came up with idea of listing people with the POPULAR first name?! such lists are ever-incomplete and will fatten the article beyond technical loadability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.72.233.80 (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop the listing crap! 

message: please add the page about this name in Ukrainian. Thank you!
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%8F Yuliiapedia (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  add another language page
Talk:Sexual differentiation

message: Just at quick look of this section: there are at least a few statements and conclusions in the section’s text which are *contradicted* by their reference citations. 
Many of the references used to support broad, generalized claims are primary source articles written with the rhetorical feel of niche, activist scholarship. Moreover, these single journal citations make claims which run counter to large, decades-long bodies of established research — this section text essentially ignores.
I’m not actually familiar with the protocol ins-and-outs of collaborating on Wikipedia. And don’t want to step on any toes, here — so just thought I’d leave a note. :) Hedonistbot4000 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain differentiation - independent research and poor citations 

message: Voice 45.215.255.148 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomy and physiology
Talk:Anti-twister mechanism

message: If I understand this right, it's related to the plate trick for demonstrating spinors.  Not sure, though, and that's not mentioned on the spinor page.  But maybe this page should have a "see also". --Andrew 02:31, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
: Dirac's belt trick? -- The Anome (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Epicurus' paradox

message: This "proof" falls apart on the thrid statement. Stating that "if God is all power and good then tghere would be no evil" is one's perception of God not a true statement. Actually it falls apart from the beginning... --;; Highwind
Uhh, aren't steps 3. and 5. the same? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:44, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
Not anymore ;) --Tagishsimon 
The usual English spelling of the adjectival form of Epicurus is "Epicurean", but I don't know how to change the title of the article. I'm going to to copy the text to a new article "Epicurean paradox" and leave it at that. Arkuat 19:04, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
DON'T DO THAT! I'll fix it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:05, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. I won't do this again. Arkuat 19:10, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I know that you meant well. It's just that there is a proper way to do it. Next time use the Move Page option. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:17, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
Can an Administrator please delete the page "Epicurean paradox" and move this page there ? Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:31, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
I've successfully gotten the "Epicurean paradox" article and its talk page together at "Epicurean paradox", each with their histories, but that was awfully confusing. Next time you move a page, look for the option to move the talk page with it. I hope this is what you wanted. Derrick Coetzee 23:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: The concept of "omnipotence" is absurd per se. If a god was omnipotent, it would be able to make a rock too heavy for itself to lift. -- Anonymous
: No, this problem goes away when you view God is completely independent of the rest of existence, as indeed He must be if He created all that exists. When seen this way, it is the question of making such a rock that becomes absurd. Wesley 05:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Omnipotence
Talk:Canossa

message: The following is not clear to me:
:One of the most dramatic moments in the history of the western church came when Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV knelt in the snow at Canossa in 1077 and begged Pope Gregory VII to lift the ban of excommunication. The pope had prohibited lay control over the placing of clergy in the church (particularly the investiture of bishops) and, by securing the forgiveness of Pope Gregory VII, the emperor was also securing the imperial power that had been jeopardized by his excommunication.
What does "The pope had prohibited lay control over the placing of clergy in the church (particularly the investiture of bishops)" have to do with anything? Was that the reason why Henry had been excommunicated? Because he had defied that prohibition? 
Someone knowledgable on this subject please clarify this page.  Thanks, -Rwv37 03:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Wow, this has gone a long time without being fixed.  I'm researching the topic as I speak (or type, really).  I'll fix it up within the coming days. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:University of Pittsburgh

message: The University of Pressure isn't exactly a public or private university. It's hybrid. It's a state-related higher education institution of Pennsylvania so it's privately run with designated state support.  Murielgh (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol on my own typos. Autocorrect on mobile Murielgh (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, 100% correct.  It is inaccurate for the article to describe the University of Pittsburgh as a public university, because it is not a public university and it never has been. It is a state-related university, and that is the actual legal status of the institution. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit neatly into the binary world of some editors, thus they have forced the article to contain misleading information.  CrazyPaco (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That description conforms with sources such as the U.S. Department of Education and the American Council on Education. You're welcome to try to convince those scholars and experts to change their minds and their published documents and we'll then follow suit. ElKevbo (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: State-related is the actual legal designation. Period. That is not changed by the US Department of Education or anyone else that has only binary buckets to place universities into their database. Those entities also are not wikipedia editors so it is not anyone's responsibility to convince them of anything. It continues to be unfortunate that you prefer unnecessary standardization over accuracy. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate to call University of Pittsburgh public state-reheated?
Talk:Central Asia

message: Fix 2600:100F:A110:5ED8:80F1:CDF1:534D:D6B9 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This has been brought up half a dozen times. Afghanistan and/or Mongolia are not part of central asia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:157B:8845:91A9:DBE (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan is missing
Talk:Heptadecagon

message: John Conway (no crank or nut) insists "heptadecagon" is wrong and should be called "Heptakaidecagon", anyone know about this?
*I don't, but I think that it's fine how it is, as it seems to me that -kai- adds length without adding clarity. Jonathan48 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct nomenclature?

message: There are links on this article to a Korean heptadecagon construction animation, which is good besides being unable to read it.  But I'm wondering, since Wikipedia should be a repository of knowledge and not a collection of links to other places with that knowledge, should I post a heptadecagon construction animation as I have for other polygons? I'm hesitant because it'd be messy and about 360KB. Jonathan48 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a really good thing to do. I like what you put in dodecagon. The size of the image doesn't matter: many photos are larger than this (and less interesting!). Even if it is "messy", I think it would be entertaining! Thincat 12:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For better or worse, I've posted it. I'm hoping that everyone doesn't think "messy" was an understatement. :) Jonathan48 02:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction animation

message: I wonder who had the idea of writing ".... 158.823529411765 degrees" on one of the first lines of the article...
Of course this is not exact, and at least half of the digits are completely useless.
Why not write  2700/17 = 158 \frac{14}{17} \approx 158.82 ?
Or, say, "approximately 158.82" ? — MFH: Talk 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Patrick 00:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many decimals

message: There are ??? in the description at the bottem  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.230.225 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it repeats half of what is said in the top part, probably a copy/paste.  Let's see if I clean it up some time.Balrog-kun (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question marks
Talk:Emily Davison

message: A couple of counting points:
*The lead asserts that "she was arrested on nine occasions", but the article, by my count, lists ten... 1909: Mar, Jul, Sep, Oct, probably Oct again; 1910: April, probably Nov; 1911: Apr, Dec. 1912: Nov.
*There's a source for the lead's "went on hunger strike seven times", but the body mentions six occasions by my count. Is there one missing from the body, or was it mixed up with the incident described as "she did not go on hunger strike, but the authorities required that she be force-fed between 29 February and 7 March 1912"? EddieHugh (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a list at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/profile-emily-wilding-davison-8631739.html. There seem to be two strikes during the January-June 1909 imprisonment. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, DrKay, for addressing this. The first point has now been dealt with. Actually, so has the second: I couldn't find it as I was looking at 1909, but the double strike is mentioned (in 1912, rather than 1909). EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting 

message: "Several theories have been put forward" - wouldn't 'explanations' be an improvement over 'theories'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damorbel (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories?
Talk:Savo Island

message: "crossed the T"? whatever does that mean? Wetman 05:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like some sort of naval manuver. Don't know, however. -Fennec 05:03, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
____
Crossing the T is a classic naval maneuver, allowing the advantage to the fleet passing the top of the T, as all ships can shoot unimpeded broadsides at the enemy, while those on the stem of the T may have their view obscured by smoke and ships will not be able to bring all their guns to bear. Most effective with sailing ships with guns that shoot to the side, but relavant to modern warships. There is a naval tactics page somewhere, so this needs a link. Leonard G. 05:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article could be improved by dividing it into sections; see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article. Also, the article does not cite its sources. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention needed
Talk:Second Gulf War

message: I proposed that this page be merged with Persian Gulf War, or it should just be deleted. It seems to say exactly the same thing as Persian Gulf War does, and can't decide if it wants to be a disam page or a fact page or what. If anyone has better ideas for cleaning this mess up, please do -- I usually try to save an AfD, if there is good reason, but I don't see one here. Thank you. Macduffman (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think deleting or redirecting this page would be a bad idea and I am glad to see that it was not done. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal
Talk:Egg tempera

message: You may be able to do painting with the described ingredients, but its's not even close to the classical tempera recipe which uses an emulsion of oil and water, emulgated by whole egg, not yolk alone, with the possible additions of mastic or dammar. --Pjacobi 23:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not fix the article then? Disputed tags tend only to be used when there is an actual arguement on the talk page. Perhaps you could add a section on classical tempera recipe - who used it, how do we know etc. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 23:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One should be aware that there are many variations on how to "temper" pigments to make paint. Egg yolk tempera is one of the simplest formulas. There are also whole-egg temperas, egg white (glair), egg-and-oil emulsions, egg and varnish (such as dammar or mastic), distemper (hide glue), and so on. Despite the disputation above, the classic egg tempera mixture is, indeed, chicken egg yolk mixed with pigment and water. Refer to www.eggtempera.com and links within that site for clear directions on painting in egg tempera. --Dharper 12:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading
Talk:Ismoil Somoni Peak

message: The name of the peak is Ismail Samani or Ismail Somoni?
:It depends how you transliterate Tajik 'o', typically it is transliterated 'o' in English, while the Iranian Persian name would be Ismail Samani or perhaps Ismāil Sāmāni - Francis Tyers · 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samani or Somoni
Talk:Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel

message: I've substantially changed the list of his children, based on the info in the new edition of Burke's Peerage. In particular, I don't think he had any children by Philippa Mortimer. Loren Rosen 06:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent, Alice FitzAlan married him. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: agrees. "Charleton" is presumably Cherleton? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, light dawns. It doesn't help that the numbering of the Earls isn't standard. Alice FitzAlan daughter of Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel married Thomas Holland. Alice FitzAlan daughter of Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel married John Cherleton, 4th Lord Cherleton, according to. So I'll amplify what's here. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Children

message: If he was the 11th Earl of Arundel was he also the 4th as it says in the text? This needs an explanation or a correction.
Mellie107 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Arundel
Talk:Octopus card

message: I am reviewing this (old or very old) FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. This article was last reviewed in 2007 and has not been maintained to standards.  There is uncited text throughout, and there is considerable datedness (text that has not apparently been updated for years). There is also considerable reliance on primary sources (Octopus itself).  Unless these items can be addressed, and the article updated to current standards, the article should be submitted to WP:FAR.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: the etymology section could probably be made more concise, even just by referencing the Chinese version of this article. Archaaron (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology
Talk:Gareth Southgate

message: Southgate was born in Crawley, no in watford and he also says Crawley is his home town 82.37.19.43 (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Here is an interview in which it is said that he was born in Watford. The Watford Observer, also says that he was born there. There is a BBC interview in which he says he was a young boy in Crawley, not that he was born there. There are many other news articles that confirm both these facts. --Samesawed (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021 

message: Final 2020 England football team 143.159.201.32 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021 

message: Under 'UEFA Euro 2020' currently reads "to reach the semi-finals of a major competition for only the fifth time"
The reference (currently ref 90) to the Guardian article, actually (at time of writing at least) contains the phrase "Only five times previously have England got this far at a major tournament"https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jul/03/england-ukraine-euro-2020-quarter-final-report-harry-kane-rout-denmark therefore (assuming major competition/tournament refers only to World Cup and Euros) this is in fact the 6th time.  [WC66 EU68 WC90 EU96 WC18 EU20]  Albeit recognising that the 'finals' phase of EU68 were only made up of semi-finals, 3PPO and final.
Also assuming we are not counting Nations League as a 'major championship', not yet at least.
Propose to change this to 'for only the sixth time' - and hoping this does not count as original research so much as rephrasing what is said in the source 'only five times previously'. Nodrog75 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information?