lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Olszynka Grochowska

message: The following is a remark by User:Irpen made in the edit summary. I paste it here just if anyone wondered why does he insist on keeping a dispute tag in the article when there is no dispute. Halibutt
not clear from the article, how the outcome follows from the text - by User:Irpen
::And my reply is: all is explained in the article's aftermath section and the note I prepared. If there is a need to reword that or combine the two - fine with me, especially that the "after the battle" section gives only one out of two most popular interpretations. However, contrary to what Irpen suggests, neither the outcome is disputed in the sources nor here. Halibutt 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refrain from personal remarks in the future. As to the quotations above - they indeed claim that the battle was won by the Russians. However, none of them disputes the outcome of the battle. The outcome is disputed by User:Irpen, not by the Russian 19th century veteran or the anonymous authors of the Russian nationalist sites mentioned above. Halibutt 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In none of the Russian language sources posted by Ghirlandajo there is any dispute about the outcome of the battle. All of them state loudly and clearly that it was a Russian victory. Sure, without any details or sources, but that's what they do state indeed. It is you to dispute the outcome, not the sources. The only sources mentioning that the outcome is somehow disputable are Gierowski and Kieniewicz, who also point out that the disputable thing is whether it was a Pyrrhic victory or a simple victory. Get the idea now? As to the discussion on your behaviour, it is related purely to you and me and I'd like you to move it elsewhere. Let's focus on this battle here, without starting OT disputes here. Halibutt 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 
Talk:Battle of the Niemen River

message: For WP:POLAND. Agree with previous milhist review, the citations are insufficient. Also, the article is not comprehensive - it is an unfinished draft, with only the first few sections developed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review: failed
Talk:Lwów Uprising

message: The infobox funnily said this as a Polish victory, I revised this  as this was a Soviet victory. The Soviets expelled the German forces, and disbanded the Polish forces right after the battle, recruiting those willing into the Soviet ranks. Poles achieved nothing in Lviv, these insurgents were the last to fly a Polish flag in Lviv in between the German collapse and the Soviet advance.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:GizzyCatBella are you and your alternate account following me? Why are you saying that a  "Soviet victory" is "not totally accurate"  ? I read the article and books on this topic. This was a total Soviet victory, crushing both the Germans and a day or two later the Polish Home Army. By the end of July there were no Polish forces left, they all fled, were arrested, or defected to the Soviets. The Template:Infobox military conflict says for the result to use "one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"", nothing else. There is no ambiguity that this was an resounding Soviet victory.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You obiously came here to make a WP:POINTy edit after getting into a dispute elsewhere and now are accusing others of having "followed you"?  Volunteer Marek  20:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Polish victory?
Talk:Battle of Komarów

message: Davies describes this battle on the pages 226-230 of WERS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Polish edition, p.229: it's part of the battle of Zamość; Davies notes it was quite a confusing battle and descriptions of its various elements differ significantly, with Komarów being a perfect example. "Polish historians often declare the charge of the Polish uhlans at Komarówow, 29 August, as the most magnificent battle of the war. Recently it was called "the largest cavalry battle since 1813 and the only battle of its kind in Europe" [source: Kornel Kozakiewicz, Na 50-lecie bojów kawalerii i artylerii konnej w 1920 roku, London, 1970, p.11). But it is omitted completely from Budionny's memoires. Przybylski in his classic account confusingly states that Russian cavalry simply "gave field" ".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davies 

message: The text reads:
At 6 o'clock in the morning 200 men strong Polish 2nd "Rokitna" Cavalry Regiment was ordered to capture the "Hill 255" to the north of the main lines of Polish cavalry. The hill was captured with no opposition. Soon afterwards a large Russian tabor was spotted, disorganised and mixed with a much larger unit of Bolshevik cavalry. With no time to hesitate, the Poles charged the enemy inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy rear units. Soon afterwards the Poles were successfully counter-attacked by Russian troops and forced to abandon the hill and retreat into the nearby village of Wolica Śniatycka. There the Russian advance was stopped by Polish heavy machine gun fire and at 10 o'clock Polish 9th "Lesser Poland" Uhlans Regiment under mjr. Dembiński charged on Russian positions and managed to recapture the "Hill 225". The Russians counterattacked several times, but to no effect.
Question:  Is it Hill 255 (as the first sentence has it), or is it Hill 225 (as the penultimate sentence says)?
--Davecampbell 00:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which hill? 

message: Failed due to insufficient citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review
Talk:Battle of Fuengirola

message: This article is riddled with bias. Also, British troops fought Poles on numerous occasions in the Peninsula War and came up winners.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.225.90 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The article says:
"Bronisz's garrison of Alhaurin was also alarmed and in the early morning of October 15 it marched to Mijas, where it clashed with a 450-strong Spanish-German unit sent there by Blayney and dispersed it in a bayonet charge."
Who charged whom?  Bigbadger79 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing pronouns 

message: Failed due to insufficient citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review
Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1656)

message: On the second day, Frederick William led a personal reconnaissance mission and noticed that a hillock against the forest, known as the "Colline" ... With the Germans having shifted attention to the Colline hillock,
Colline is not a proper name, but simply the French word for hillock, or small hill See Wiktionary entry. French served as a common language among the educated elites in 17th-century Europe. Perhaps the Brandenburg and Swedish officers used it among themselves to coordinate their efforts during the battle, and so referred to that decisive terrain feature as the colline. It seems one or more authors of military history, who did not know French, found the term in first-hand sources, and referred to it like it was a name.  Textor (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake regarding the term "Colline"

message: Failed due to insufficient citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review
Talk:Battle of Stoczek

message: Bratkowski, Stanisław.   Scènes politiques de la révolution polonaise. Liv. 3, Le premier régiment des Krakusses.  Lyon : de Brunet, 1832.
Dwernicki, Józef.  Pamiętniki jenerała Józefa Dwernickiego.  Lwów : nakł. i wyd. Ludwika Plagowskiego, 1870.
Goczałkowski, Stanisław Wojciech Nepomucen.  Pamiętniki ułana.  Lwów : Księg. H. W. Kallenbacha, 1855.
Kopczyński, Michał.  "Bitwa pod Stoczkiem," in Rzeczpospolita.  Vol. 17 (18/11/2006), No. 38: 4-15.
Leslie, R. F.  Polish politics and the Revolution of November 1830.  University of London, Athlone Press, 1956.
Puzrevskii, A. Wojna Polso-Rossyjska 1831 Roku.  Trans. P. J. Bykowski.  Warszawa:  Tygodniowego, 1888.
R. de S.  Notice biographique sur la vie et les travaux militaires de M. le G-al Dwernicki.  Paris : en vente au bureau de la revue, 1844.
Strzeżek, Tomasz.  Stoczek - Nowa Wieś 1831.  Warszawa : Bellona, 2010.
Tokarz, Wacław.  Wojna polsko-rosyjska 1830 i 1831 r.  Warszawa, Wojskowy instytut naukowo-wydawniczy, 1930.
Trąbski, Maciej.  Kawaleria Królestwa Polskiego, 1815-1830.  Warszawa : Wydawnictwo DiG, 2011.
I found these vey useful for learning more about this battle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.129.75.188 (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sorry about that, but the previous incarnation of this article was in line with Neither Polish, No Russian sources on the matter.
So, yours truly took a liberty to make it great... not again, but for the first time
Cheers, 77.250.215.144 (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A complete revamp
Talk:Battle of Szack

message: This article was recently moved from battle of Szack to battle of Shatsk without discussion or an explanation. English sources prefer Szack, as "Battle Szack 1939 -wikipedia" on Google Print gives us 382 hits, whereas "Battle Shatsk 1939 -wikipedia" gives us 4. Per WP:COMMONNAME I am reverting this move and restoring the name that was stable for many years. Please use WP:RM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move 

message: - are taken from a delusional wartime propaganda polish article. Even the polish wiki now has quite different, much lower figures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.32.27 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been adressed.Tvoi Ded (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Losses 

message: How was this a polish victory if a)the poles were forced to retreat b)they suffered far greater losses, than the Soviets (RKKA captured 1100 prisoners and killed hundreds more with the loss of ~200 men?) Appears to be a Soviet victory. Tvoi Ded (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome
Talk:Battle of Raszyn (1809)

message: How can one claim this battle to be a Polish victory as the consequence of it was abandoning Warschau? It more looks like tactically to be a draw and in the short run to be an Austrian victory strategically. --fdewaele, 20 November 2007, 18:38.  —Preceding comment was added at 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing a battle with a war.VolunteerMarek 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish victory?
Talk:Battle of Lwów (1920)

message: I wonder what are the numbers in the section on "Commanders and forces". It needs a complete rewrite IMO, since I don't understand a word of it. Halibutt 13:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Płowce

message: Having read the article, I don't see how this isn't a clear tactical victory for the Polish. They captured the enemy commander and numerous other knights, defeating the Teutonic attack and forced the remainder of the Teutonic army to retreat. I've reverted the infobox accordingly. Either way, this article badly needs sources, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.200.10 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indecisive or Polish victory?
Talk:Interstate 76 (Colorado–Nebraska)

message: The history section is confusing. For example :
Interstate 76 was signed as Interstate 80S, not just in Nebraska and Colorado.
OK, so where else WAS I-76 signed as 80S?
I'll attempt to clean up, but I'm not familiar with this freeway. If I mess it up, my apologies in advance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemeistermoab (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other I-76 was also I-80S, but that's probably not worth more than a brief mention if any. --NE2 15:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing some cleanup on the history section. 

message: River crossings...
You ought to explain where (by milepost) there are any crossings of major rivers, such as the South Platte River. It is possible that this highway zig-zags across the river several times, but it is quite hard to tell.47.215.183.159 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, it is true that I-70 crosses the Missouri River twice in Missouri; I-75 crosses the Tennessee River at least twice in Tennessee; and I-55 crosses the Mississippi River twice in Illinois-Missouri-Arkansas-Tennessee; I-65 crosses the Alabama River twice in Alabama; and I-75 crosses the Chattahoochee River twice in Georgia. Such details are hard to figure out now.47.215.183.159 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  River crossings... 
Talk:Battle of Jena–Auerstedt

message: none of the french deutsch nor english article versions have the same number for each troops... Shame On You 07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: well well well

message: I assume it is this person? Right? William I of the Netherlands --AW 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince of Orange 

message: However the town is now spelled, the battle of Auerstadt is spelled several ways; I doubt this is English usage. Davout's title should have the French spelling, whatever it may be. 
Similarly, Kalkreuth is frequently spelled without the c. 
Data would be nice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: I changed the comment about Neys assault in the papagraph "The Battle of Jena", since I didn't think it was right to use the word "stupid" in an article. I have not changed the meaning of the sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.160.138 (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in the wording 

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: In the section on Jena:
Recognizing this distressed salient, the Prussian general ordered a counter attack and enveloped Ney's forces,
What Prussian general?  Hohenlohe, the commander of the whole army, or one of his subordinates?  Somehow the section on Jena entirely fails to mention Hohenlohe, which is very weird. john k (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Prussian general" 

message: The figures given in opposing armies section conflict with the numbers in the Infobox... One specific example is Auerstedt: Are there 27,000 French troops (Infobox) at the battle or 47,000 - 20,000 + 27,000 (listed in Opposing Armies text)? There are also discrepancies between the Prussian troop numbers... Hopefully, someone can resolve this... Thanks... Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy in Numbering of Forces
Talk:Battle of Covadonga

message: how come the asturians won when it lost 289 out of 300 of its troop?
It seems victory is conceded to the asturians due to the fact that both Alqama and Munuza were killed and their forces (rather superior) were decimated.  Victory may also be conceded due to the fact that muslim forces never again challenged the Kingdom of Asturias (possibly because it was not worth the trouble) and because the battle is considered to be the starting point of the Reconquista, an ongoing effort that eight centuries later ended muslim rule in the peninsula.  Also, Pelayo survived, adding to his charisma.Cptn. Nemo 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The infobox labels this a "decisive" victory for Asturias.
Victory, sure, since it won the kingdom its independence. But how is having only eleven men survive decisive?
Well its decive because if they had lost then the asturian kingdom would be conquered by the moors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.100.246 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Decisive victory?

message: My understanding is that firearms have not been invented yet at the time of the battle!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Asturians opened fire??? 

message: I've changed the name throughout the article from the Spanish to the Latin version, which is used in English texts and in any other article on Wikipedia mentioning Pelagius. Trigaranus (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelayo → Pelagius 

message: The article places the Battle in either 718 or 722, but says it took place after the Battle of Toulouse, which took place in 721. Does that not eliminate 718 as an option? Tpsreport84 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Battle 

message: I removed the skepticism from the lead because the existence of the battle is not generally in doubt. See here, where Patrick Henriet says explicitly "La réalité de son existence, qui a suscité un certain nombre d'interrogations et des jugements variés, n'est généralement plus mise en doute aujourd'hui." Srnec (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding skepticism
Talk:Portuguese conquest of Ceuta

message: A serious mistake is committed. Morroco did not exist in this epoch it is like to say that Castile was Spain in the 13th century.
In the same way it is ridiculous, the panel of campaign. In Morocco? It would be better to change it into Portuguese campaigns into the north of Africa.
Another clear contradiction is yes Ceuta is in Spain, cannot be in Morocco .... as he says the article... The article seems to be very slanted...--88.19.30.232 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sultanate of Morroco??? 

message: Ceuta has been conquered probably a good couple of dozen of times throughout history. Which conquest are we referring to here? Article should be named Portuguese conquest of Ceuta. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Change

message: Will proceed if no one contests over coming days.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone disagrees if I redirect this article to Portuguese Conquest of Ceuta?

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: general consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Conquest of Ceuta →  – As has been brought up previously on the talk page, the current title is not 
WP:PRECISE. إيان (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Against Nope, this is the WP:Common name and there is no other notable conquest to disambiguate from. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 April 2022
Talk:Second Battle of Guararapes

message: The second battle of Guararapes did not end Dutch occupation of Portuguese Brazil.  Who makes this stuff up?  It's completely unsourced and untrue.  The Portuguese won the battle, and retook some territory, but Dutch military forces continued to hold out in significant enclaves, and neither surrendered not took flight.  Dutch ships maintained control of Brazil's waters until about 1652. Dutch insurrection and occupation gradually petered out between 1652 and 1654, primarily due to diversion of Dutch resources by the first Anglo-Dutch war.  The Portuguese eventually forced Dutch forces to a truce, called the Treaty of Taborda in 1654, but even that was intended to be temporary, until the Dutch crown could act.  Dutch forces didn't actually evacuate until 1654.
Dutch claims to Brazil weren't abandoned until the formal Treaty of the Hague (1661).
Sbalfour (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: utter nonsense 

message: I have edited the lead, citing Charles R. Boxer's classic history of the Dutch in Brazil on the second battle.  The Dutch remained in Brazil a few more years, but the battle did have an impact on the Dutch understanding of Portuguese capabilities in warfare. Amuseclio (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited lead for accuracy
Talk:Alien Apocalypse

message: What's with that? _Dub_ is a perfectly accurate term for it. I have never heard of the term "loop" in this context, so I'm wondering whether it's some obscure jargon that should be wiki-linked, or just a redundant synonym. -- 78.35.98.218 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "looped"?

message: This is not the plot of this movie 2601:240:DA80:B420:B8B4:207B:A1D9:4544 (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong plot
Talk:Battle of Lake Regillus

message: This article is practically off the wall, a tenth rate hash of grade B secondary source guesses and lies. For example, lake regillus was for the most part not a volcanic crater and certainly was not dry in the 4th century BC. Why should it be dry? Volcanic lakes do not just dry up a propos of nothing in a few short years and if it was dry how could the classical Romans run aquaducts from it? The location is no longer in doubt. The springs that fed it are currently in use for the water supply of Rome; otherwise, the lake would still be there. See under Gabii, with which I am not done yet. The article says nothing of Gabii, the major settlement on the lake. Just about everything else is baloney as well. We need some expertise added here. I'll be getting to it eventually. You know how Wikipedia is, you go looking for supporting material and mainly what you find are kluged-up pieces of junk sporting templates waiting for their first real editor, so you jump from junk-yard to junk-yard trying to dodge the neurotic shadows of the great collective id. Three million "articles"? Sure. Among these few million opportunities to do an article it is easy to get sidetracked but I will eventually get to the battle. Feel free to do it yourself; meanwhile, don't take it too seriously and don't delude yourself into thinking it says anything much. It's an opportunity, and that can be a good thing, but not yet a serious article.Dave (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally unsat

message: There's currently a discussion under "Second Latin War" about the recent move of "Latin War" to that title, and creation of "First Latin War" by the same editor, largely duplicating information in this article, and adding some dubious inferences (such as that the war dragged on until 493, when Spurius Cassius concluded a treaty with the Latins, or that Cassius was somehow "the" Roman leader during the war, despite a lack of mention of any other battles against the Latins led by Cassius, or any other battles against the Latins after Lake Regillus).  Ancient authorities don't seem to consider this "the First Latin War", and there were certainly other conflicts between Rome and Latin towns or alliances between this and the "Second" Latin War (usually just called "The Latin War") that would have better merited the label.  So it looks as if "Second Latin War" will be going back to "Latin War," and "First Latin War" will be going away.  Whatever needs to be merged into this article from that one can be done when that discussion is over.  I'll be glad to work on this when the time comes.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge with First Latin War