lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Michelle Robinson

message: remove it
if anyone cares the name can be included with husband article
Keep: She has her own page, and interest in her will pick up during the primaries (and possibly election).  I wikipediad her after seeing her name on a CNN timeline of Barack's life, other people may do similarly.  Also, I don't see any clear reason to delete.  Themissinglint 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand - there is a separate page for her as Michelle Obama which is not being recommended for deletion.  The page Michelle Robinson is not necessary  by itself - it should be a redirect to Michelle Obama which has the content about her and which will likely grow in size. Tvoz |talk 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdraw my objection as per Tvoz. Themissinglint (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep or delete?
Talk:Borel's lemma

message: This result was proven by Giuseppe Peano 11 years before Borel, his name should be added (and maybe the page renamed).
Source: Peano's Unnoticed Proof of Borel's Theorem (2014)
Victor d'Orsay (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

message: I don't think these are the same theorems. For more information about the "Borel's theorem on power series", see for example the discussion on:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/63050/every-power-series-is-the-taylor-series-of-some-c-infty-function  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.166.163.85 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the link for "Borel's theorem on power series" is redirecting here?
Talk:St George's Fields, Westminster

message: What happened to the graves and bodies when the cemetery was converted into a housing estate? Dadge (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this blog discussing the question. Obviously we need better sources to include info in article. CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graves 

message: Is this article about the former burial site, the housing development, or both? As is, notability isn't clearly established for one or the other. 
If about the burial site needs expansion (history, notable graves and so on) - plus the previous question: where did the graves go?
If about the "ziggurat", need details. If these can't be procured perhaps not notable after all? CapnZapp (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup
Talk:Banded linsang

message: The article on Asiatic Linsangs suggests that this species is not actually a civet. Mammals are not my specialty, but I am tempted to ammend this article. Any ideas/suggestions/comments?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladist (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.smallcarnivoreconservation.org/sccwiki/images/7/73/Number_9.PDF. 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.  MER-C 12:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/BhagyaMani. MER-C 12:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:West African oyan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Handbook of the Mammals of the World, Chief editors: Don E. Wilson and Russell A. Mittermeier. Infringing 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) 19:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Bott periodicity theorem

message: Without the Bott periodicity theorems, we would not know that real and complex K-theories are periodic extraordinary cohomology theories.  As these are subjects classified of high importance, one has to regard the Bott periodicity theorem as being of high importance, too. -- Chuck 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of Bott periodicity

message: It is very strange that, although the periodicity results are expressed clearly in this article, the actual homotopy groups πk(G) for G = U, O, Sp and k = 0, 1, 2, ... are left unmentioned.
I could copy these homotopy groups, but ideally the groups themselves would be be introduced into the article by someone who is an expert in this material.Daqu (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is strange. But waiting for an expert to fly in and do the work for you is maybe an unreasonable expectation. I've added the homotopy groups for the orthogonal groups, but I don't know what they are in the unitary case. Woscafrench (talk, contribs) 11:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the actual homotopy groups are ... OMITTED 

message: John Baez says (citing a paper by Cartan): "This 'period-8' behavior was discovered by Cartan in 1908 ..."
*
*
This seems relevant.  Perhaps someone familiar with the subject matter can add this?  —Quondum 16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of Bott periodicity 

message: "The context of Bott periodicity is that the homotopy groups of spheres, which would be expected to play the basic part in algebraic topology by analogy with homology theory, have proved elusive (and the theory is complicated)."
Can someone please make the meaning of this sentence clear?  I cannot imagine what it is intended to mean.
That "the homotopy groups of sphere" (by which is meant the computation of tables of the homotopy groups of spheres) is "elusive" is clear.
What is utterly unclear is "the basic part in algebraic topology by analogy with homology theory".
Homology theory is of course part of algebraic topology. So: What is this supposed to mean???2600:1700:E1C0:F340:7967:7502:8C03:5EC0 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly unclear sentence
Talk:Bounded quantifier

message: The "otheruses4" template is more specific about which hatnote is intended, while "about" is more vague about what is supposed to be generated. Moreover, "Some examples" seems like redundant writing: of course the list only has "some" examples, but what benefit is there in using the word "some"? It makes the prose sound less polished, without adding any additional information. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I can't understand what difference bounded actually makes. As the article Quantifier (logic) states: "Every quantification involves one specific variable and a domain of discourse or range of quantification." So isn't every quantifier bounded? St.nerol (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The short answer is that unbounded quantifiers range over the entire universe, the bounded ones are specifically restricted to a subset/subclass of the universe. The long answer is that I don't know how to say this more formally, so I reposted your question to Talk:Quantifier (logic)#Sharpen distinction w.r.t. bounded quantifier. Maybe someone over there will notice and answer. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't every quantifier bounded?
Talk:Rob Little

message: The sentence which opens the paragraph under Standup and Acting embodies my issue with this page. We have many marginal but important published writers and musicians without pages, but a corporate comic can use the space to self promote. How can this be properly addressed without targeting one person's reasonable aspirations? MaxFountain (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is PR not a wiki page.
Talk:Sam Baker (offensive tackle)

message: it's pathetic that this page is updated 4 seconds after he is drafted.  Get lives people!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.194.171 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:No. 245 Squadron RAF

message: The squadron aircraft noted in the entry for this squadron is incomplete as during the Second World War 245 Squadron was equipped with Typhoons and formed a key part of The 2nd Tactical Air Force operating out of Westhampnett, (now Goodwood) and various other satellite airfields such as Holmsley North around D-day. At the end of the war it was beginning to be equipped with Meteors which replaced the Typhoons, and then latterly Hunters.
89.241.147.13 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Cane rat

message: Current picture may be of Greater Cane Rat and not Cane Rat Mindofvacuity (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The caption already makes this clear. (The Greater Cane Rat is, of course, still a "Cane Rat" in the sense used in this article). Anaxial (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture query
Talk:Jimmy Mataya

message: I am gathering some more data to insert in this article in the very near future.  Hope to see some more contributions, too, please.
RailbirdJAM 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: I have removed the photo from the article because I have to figure out how to meta-tag it to meet the enclopedia guidelines.  As soon as I rectify this, I will insert the photo again. RailbirdJAM 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I detailed this for you on the Talk:Allen Hopkins page where this issue first came up.  There's nothing wrong with the pics, a few of them just need a copyright template added to their page.  For right this moment, it's not problematic to have them in the articles; they are simply in danger of automated deletion if the license tags are not inserted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mataya Photo
Talk:Pinball FX

message: Some screenshots of the individual tables would be good. --Oscarthecat 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shots

message: The statement under "Additional Content" that the Buccaneer table would be included in future downloads of the full game is misleading as the table is still not included in downloads as of November 2008.  I'm removing the statement, although that removal may technically be OR. Philhower (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Buccaneer not included

message: - using this as a reference for future article expansion. --Teancum (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: For expansion
Talk:State v. Limon

message: I was unaware that he had actually been released.  I knew that there was significant discussion of this issue in the MO-KAN gay press at the time of Lawrence v. Texas.  If I had run across the name, I likeley would have looked up his case, not Lawrence. It just needs a little elaboration.
Westleyd 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantial Topic
Talk:Jack Giarraputo

message: I noticed the page is missing Giarraputo's next film, the Adam Sandler comedy Bedtime Stories. I have a press release which shows this that I can send anyone who requests it, but unfortunately it is not available online. However, the New York Times lists him as a producer on the film.
Note: Because it's a Disney movie and they are a client of my employer (see my my user page for more details) then I should not be the one to make the edit per WP:COI. Hence this request. NMS Bill (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing credit: [[Bedtime Stories (film)]]
Talk:Hazel dormouse

message: Is it true that the Hazel Dormouse is Britain's only small mammal to have a completely furry tail? What about the Edible Dormouse? Jon H (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the red squirrel falsifies the assertion. The rabbit is not native to Britain. Ucucha 14:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I am not an expert, this is why I am starting this discussion here, but while searching for this rodent online i have had a hard time finding any info based on the family and subfamily listed in this article. The ITIS website classifies it as Myoxidae not as Gliridae here: http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=584948
Also the site www.eol.org wich has a declared goal of gathering information on every species on the planet, again lists it as Myoxidae here: http://eol.org/pages/8699
Ionuke (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both a bit out of date.  There was an ICZN ruling that supported Gliridae a couple years back.  In the 1993 edition, Mammal Species of the World used Myoxidae, but the 2005 edition, after the ICZN ruling, used Gliridae.  I actually suspect that EOL is just copying ITIS.  --Aranae (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family mismatch 

message: I think the link text at the end of the introduction (near "National Biodivestity Network") should be different from "here". --Mortense (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link text non grata 

message: Is it possible to change our external link http://www.ptes.org/index.php?cat=61 to http://www.ptes.org/index.php?cat=123 - Thanks, Regards People's Trust for Endangered Species.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.30.173 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix dead link  
Talk:Garden dormouse

message: The article says "the garden dormouse's main habitat is the forest, though it can also be found in fruit-growing regions". Now, I've only seen one of these creatures once, in my garden in the south of France. Not a forest for miles and miles, and hardly a tree within 100 metres. And not exactly a fruit-growing region though there are includes vineyards. According to the French Wikipedia version, Le lérot vit dans les vergers, les jardins et parcs (il est plus fréquent dans l'entourage humain que le muscardin ou le loir). Il fréquente facilement les greniers... et bâtiments abandonnés. ["The Garden Dormouse lives in orchards, gardens and parks (it is more common around humans than the Hazel Dormouse or the Edible dormouse). It inhabits barns... and abandoned buildings."] So, is the reference here to forests wrong? Emeraude (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitat
Talk:Ben Steinbauer

message: Steinbauer is such a nice German surname. Does anyone have information on Ben's German or even German-Jewish descent? 91.66.9.250 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Heritage
Talk:Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

message: Why isn't Iraq a part of this? 90.196.221.182 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq?

message: Because Iraq is not on the Mediterranean: could you even point it on a map!?
Anyway, the EMP membership has changed through time: Albania and Mauritania are full members. Could anyone update this all? 151.97.230.36 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The subtle difference between Mediterranean and Persian seas

message: Jordan is not on the Mediterranean either, but is included. Iraq is part of the Fertile Crescent which is historically and culturally linked with the Mediterranean and if Mauritania qualifies for entry then Iraq is 100% eligible. 90.193.39.195 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  We are reporting on what the situation is; not on what you might wish it is.  Iraq is not a member.  End of.  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediterranean coastline not essential

message: This article contradicts itself on membership.  The lead paragraph states that membership comsists of the 27 countries of the European Union plus 16 partner countries.  The accompanying map excludes Monaco, includes Turkey, and has Libya as an observer.  The paragraph under "Euromediterranean Summit 2005" states that Libya and Mauretania are observers, includes Turkey as a full member, and does not mention Monaco at all.  This is confused further, by the paragraph under "Conference members" including a long list, with flag icons, of the situation at the inaugural meeting in 1995.  Surely the present position, if anyone ever sorts out what that is, should be the appropriate list to receive such prominence.  Skinsmoke (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: The article says: "The partnership laid the foundations for what came to be the Union for the Mediterranean, an institution building on, but not replacing, the EuroMed Partnership.", but  says: " Euro-Mediterranean partnership (now integrated in the Union for the Mediterranean)"
About Libya: "Libya belongs to the Union for the Mediterranean, but was not a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: negotiations are currently on-going on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and Libya, they have started in November 2008." - this is somewhat contradictory to the UfM article where Libya is mentioned as "observer" and this quote implies "member" (but doesn't explicitly say so)
For both topics (Libya and UfM/EMP relationship) the source I gave can be wrong (as it is not "focused" exactly on these issues and just mentions them as remarks), but we need to have firm sources having explicit statements for "UfM has not replaced EMP" and "Libya is UfM observer" - and coming from EU ENP Commissioner or EU High Representative (journalistic reports, statements by MEPs, MPs, ministers, head of states, etc. often lack in detail for such things as "UfM replacing EMP" vs. "UfM building on EMP") or better yet from the ENP reports. Alinor (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union for the Mediterranean, Libya
Talk:Scholarship of teaching and learning

message: The addition of the section "Criticisms":
Questions have been raised when the methods of teaching are given such importance at university level. The traditional view was that educational expertise - which would be subsumed in SoTL to a large extent - was of key importance at primary level, but declined as the student advanced and became an independent learner. At university level the professor was a resource person. Critics of such movements as SoTL see them as infantilizing students.
Does not add balance, but rather an unverified, unsourced opinion.  The "critics" need to be named and cited.  If the criticism is merely a personal response, it should not be included in the article.
::I agree that this section should go, for precisely the reasons you specify. A criticism section could legitimately revolve around the various types of evidence gathered and their statistical analysis...and would require sources and citations.PBarak 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:SSR

message: Should this page be limited to items that have SSR as English initials or should it include other languages as the current page displays? I feel it should only be English usage of the initialisation. The use of SSR in other languages should be on the Wikipedias in their respective languages. Alan Liefting 18:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English versus other lanuages

message: Request for comment over linking of article relating to SRR from representative of authors:
'Security Sector Evolution: Understanding & Influencing How Security Sector Institutions Change' 
http://www.libraadvisorygroup.com/assets/docs/SecuritySectorEvolutionLibraJuly2009.pdf
PoppyTen (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to add links to two papers
Talk:Shrew mole

message: What, anatomically, is the difference between a shrew-mole and a mole-shrew?  Chrisrus (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the difference? 

message: Yes, it does satisfy my objection, thank you for your help.
With regard to further tweeking:
I liked the symplicity of saying "species of mole that look like shrews" vs. "species of shrew that look like moles".  But now I think it might be better to say "..species in the (mole/shrew) family...."  It's the nature of these species that they don't fit the usual definition of "mole" or "shrew" very well, so maybe I should not have called them "moles" or "shrews" but rather "members of the mole/shrew family", an objective fact about current taxonomy. Chrisrus (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! Apologies for the rather brusque way I did it, but I really did feel the previous comment that they may be confused was not appropriate. Too much of a personal opinion. But I see no problem with the way it is presently phrased ("species of mole in the family Talpidae that resemble shrews" / "species of shrew that resemble moles"). It is clear and simple, and any niceties of disctinction between a "mole" and a "member of the mole family" are better dealt with at the relevant article(s). All such articles are linked to from here, and in fact the subtle difference between "mole in the family Talpidae" and "shrew" is pretty accurate from a taxonomic perspective. I'd leave it. Or maybe change the shrew-mole lead to "members of the mole family, Talpidae, that resemble shrews". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have another idea.  Let's split this into two and use opposite "distinguish tags"; one saying "({{Distinguish|Mole shrew]])" and the other saying "()". So it'd look like the articles Minor planet vs Dwarf planet at the top. We should split this disambiguation page into two disambiguation pages with opposite "distinguish" tags on each, so that it looks like the articles "Minor planet" and "Dwarf planet" do at the top, but instead of distinguishing between articles, we'd be distinguishing disambiguation pages. Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course. That would be much better. Go do! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think that's . Chrisrus (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent (further) changes
Talk:Law enforcement in Slovakia

message: Dep. Garcia  ( Talk  + | Help Desk | Complaints )  19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

message: With new regulations and rules it seems like that is heading in that direction! Try to avoid visiting this country! Not knowing the trafik rules could cost you a bundle, and ruin your trip! 2001:569:7C11:F300:C189:B98:62E9:3E70 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Slovakia a Police State?