lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time

message: I want Newton to be at the end of the year but in the same years since Henry forgot that the month numbers change as well as the day and week numbers! Why is Newton between June and July? Why shouldn't it be after December? The Symmetry 454 Calendar puts its leap week at the end of the year so why shouldn't the C&T Calendar put Newton after December? Why? Why? Why? We already have problems with the leap day after February, why should Newton be now placed after June? Why? Why? WHY?!!!From now on, Newton should be the 13th month of the year, the 53rd week of the year and the 365th - 371st days of the year. Now who's with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 July 2006
:There are calendar reforms that have a leap week at the END of the calendar year, but this is not one of them. If you don't care for it, make your case with the calendar's creator, Dr. Henry. I'm sure he will give you a fair hearing. - Nhprman List 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

message: It just seems as if this solution (which apparently needs a computer to work out the date) is far more complicated then the currently accepted leap year method currently employed (which a 10 year old can do in their head). What are the advantages of placing leap weeks at somewhat random yearly intervals? MrZoolook (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which (if any) official bodies support this?
Talk:Mighty Terror

message: I've completely re-written this article and removed the stub tags. I would appreciate people checking, proof-reading and correcting mistakes in this article!
I am aiming to do some other Calypsonians when I get the time. There seem to be a lot of the most influential ones missing or as stubs.Fork me 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Thanks to those who have updated this article to show the sad death of the Terror. RIP. Fork me 14:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death
Talk:Roosevelt–Rondon Scientific Expedition

message: Just passing through; I don't have time to check sources, but do the references given at the end of the article support the assertion that some of the locals were, indeed, cannibals?--RattBoy 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, The River of Doubt, page 231: "The most striking fact about the Cinta Larga - and one that would have alarmed the expedition had they known it - was that these Indians were cannibals" .. there is no mention of "cannibal" in Through the Brazilian Wilderness, but as the above quote makes clear, they didn't know they were cannibals. -- Stbalbach 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibals
Talk:Gorilla (Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band album)

message: link 4 is dead in references. I dont know how to use wikipedia thanks, love - jesus (not that jesus, im a mexican or maybe some kinda spanish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c45e:e940:f5ad:e8b3:6fa6:cea3 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: link 4 is dead in the references
Talk:LXR Cross Referencer

message: Need a disambiguation page to distinguish between computer programming and the LIver X Receptor also known as LXR.
-- Done by Ajlittoz (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Evil Nine

message: This article reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a review of a fan's favorite band. Could someone more familiar with the artists please add more facts? In particular, I question: "quickly recognised as a quality DJ/Producer" (by whom?) ... "stirred up the breaks scene" (is this verifiable?) "rapidly establishing them as the new golden boys" (according to whom?) Wikipedia is not a site for music reviews. Articles ought to be more objective than this. As a guideline, maybe look at some articles on other musicians. 66.17.105.226 13:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Barney Kessel

message: Removed 2 paragraphs and parts of others promoting Kay and Gibson guitars. The material wasn't referenced and, again, plainly violated WP:NOPROMO. The small photo claimed that he was playing a Guild guitar, but the photo's file info mentions nothing at all about the brand of guitar. There's other unreferenced material in the article, but none of it is promotional. The material was tagged before this edit. Tapered (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for removing that. Usually people add instruments. Even if sourced, it's difficult to avoid seeing a list of instruments as an endorsement, and it doesn't add much to the article.Vmavanti (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal promotional material
Talk:Susan Blanchard

message: I have split two Susan Blanchard biographies. Note that both Susan Blanchards are described as actresses, but I can't find any acting credits for the woman I have disambiguated as Susan Blanchard (socialite). I'm not really satisfied with that article name, but it seems to be a good placeholder for now. Please note that the previous biography seemed to conflate her with Susan J. Blanchard, who died in 1999. I could not confirm this either, so I removed the information for now.
The article now at Susan Blanchard (actress) is a little spotty too, in terms of biographical information, but again, it will have to do as there's not much online. Jokestress 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming scheme
Talk:Michał Kazimierz "Rybeńko" Radziwiłł

message: Any clue how to translate "Rybeńko" since 4 other Radziwiłłs got their nicknames translated? Renata 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Small Fish (žuvelė) M.K. 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On another important, but somewhat unrelated matter. Piotrus, your addition concerning Rybenko's psychological dispostion makes me cringe a little. Please hear me out. There has been an attempt in some circles recently, to psychoanalyze historical figures, diagnose their medical aliments, and come up with hypotheses and theories about what made them "tick". It's a little dangerous to to so. Speaking as both a historian, and medically trained professional in psychiatry, I want to go on record as an opponent of this nonsense, and hope to remove it from Wikipedia. The concept and so forth, should be outlined and explained in an article of its own. This should be done to let our readers understand what it's about, but again let me go on record as saying it's very, very bogus, and should be strongly discouraged. It opens the door to flame wars, edit wars, and endless strife. It can not be medically, scientifically, or otherwise proven, and is simply too POV. We can't truly analyze Charles De Gaulle, let alone Hitler, Stalin or Robespierre, and say that we can do so about the 250+ year old "Rybenko". The reference, that you almost plagiarized vebatim, is an opinion not a matter of fact. I hope I can persuade you to help me remove this kind of material from Wikipedia, and vigilantly help me to challenge it, when it becomes necessary. I think it's very important. Dr. Dan 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psycho History

message: "Rybenko" is a diminutive for "little fish" in vocative case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.207.61 (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rybenko"
Talk:Susan Blanchard (actress)

message: I have split two Susan Blanchard biographies. Note that both Susan Blanchards are described as actresses, but I can't find any acting credits for the woman I have disambiguated as Susan Blanchard (socialite). I'm not really satisfied with that article name, but it seems to be a good placeholder for now. Please note that the previous biography seemed to conflate her with Susan J. Blanchard, who died in 1999. I could not confirm this either, so I removed the information for now.
The article now at Susan Blanchard (actress) is a little spotty too, in terms of biographical information, but again, it will have to do as there's not much online. Jokestress 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming scheme 

message: There are no dates as to Blanchard's age, though part of the article is written in past tense. Is there any photo of the actress by herself? Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Susan still living?
Talk:Susan Blanchard (socialite)

message: I have split two Susan Blanchard biographies. Note that both Susan Blanchards are described as actresses, but I can't find any acting credits for the woman I have disambiguated as Susan Blanchard (socialite). I'm not really satisfied with that article name, but it seems to be a good placeholder for now. Please note that the previous biography seemed to conflate her with Susan J. Blanchard, who died in 1999. I could not confirm this either, so I removed the information for now.
The article now at Susan Blanchard (actress) is a little spotty too, in terms of biographical information, but again, it will have to do as there's not much online. Jokestress 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming scheme 

message: I think someone who has been married to three notable actors, including Henry Fonda and Richard Widmark, is notable. This information has been on the site since September 2005 without deletionists jumping on it.  It got listed today because it is a new disambiguation from another actress by the same name. Jokestress 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the only reason I created this was to separate materials in one article that conflated two actresses of the same name.  Without this page, the confusion will continue. Jokestress 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO marrying someone (or a number of someones) does not make a person notable. Likewise, name confusion does not seem to me a valid reason to create an article on someone who otherwise would not merit one. Nuttah68 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you suggest we go back to this? Jokestress 17:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I suggest that all reference to Susan Blanchard (socialite) be removed apart from a brief mention as wife on each of her husbands articles. Nuttah68 17:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you propose handling the required disambiguation on Susan Blanchard (actress)? Jokestress 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is needed, that article makes it clear who it is about. There are many people who share a name with someone in Wikipedia, they do not get an article just in case there is name confusion. Nuttah68 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one you propose deleting was the subject of the original article, though. Both seem equally notable, and it's clear there is confusion. See Jeanette Washington for precedent involving two singers who recorded under the same name. Jokestress 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the trouble though. A Wiki Policy (haven't time to find it now) clearly states being married or related to someone who is notable does not make a person notable. A person must be notable in their own right. It appears that Susan Blanchard (socialite) only claim is that she has married three actors. Nuttah68 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion 

message: She was also briefly married to a man named Doug Ades in the 70’s . They were friends of my mother in CT where she had a home in Roxbury 2601:182:880:B7C0:E58D:59C6:CC79:E93A (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages
Talk:Stratocumulus cloud

message: Why are the clouds in the photo from Beskids Sc? They look more like Cu. --Vladimír Fuka (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they are Stratocumulus, but the picture only shows the edge of them. But I agree that they can be misleading to someone who does not know clouds to well. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the fact that this article has no Cloud Infobox is a serious problem. Can someone add one? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, never mind because I added one. But my information might not be correct so contact me or fix it if you see anything wrong. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacking [[Template:Infobox Cloud|Cloud Infobox]] 

message: there is a video with explanation of lined-up Stratocumulus cloud at
http:// hubpages .com/hub/Strange-clouds-appear-over-Sea-of-Okhotsk--Japan
but wikipedia is blocking hubpages .com - this is why I am writing it with spaces.
true the video is on youtube but there you don't have the explanation.
Please see what you can do - good luck...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.83.123 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a video of lined-up Stratocumulus cloud
Talk:Electronic state

message: Are the electrons made of some more elementary particles?
Are the electrons made of gravitons?
To whomever asked the above question: No,  electrons are elementary particles, and  gravitons have not been observed
Drxenocide (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

message: I dont know what directs here, but whatever directs here should direct to Energy Level instead. Drxenocide (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic state = Energy Level. Redirect FTW?
Talk:Spearthrower Owl

message: While there are certainly a few sources, iconographic and inscriptional remains which suggest a teotihuacano origin for this ruler, the article needs to balance out the claims and IMO be a little more tentative in putting forward this heritage. Other sources note that equally it was common for Maya and other Meosamerican cultures to claim a revisionist heritage from teotihuacan, often well after the time period, and so there should be some more discussion on the topic.--cjllw | TALK 08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teotihuacan origins

message: New very signific evidence suggests that Teotihuacan was certanly not the city of piece and that brutal sacrifices and wars in which captives were taken were common. Also, some of the sacrificial victims (some were killed by being hit several times on the head and others decapitated) seem to have been from Guatemala, and therefore mayans. This proves that Teotihuacan subjected at least some mayan cities and did not spread its influence through commerce, emissaries, and religion but conquest insted. This evidence will support the theory of Teotihuacan expansion during the reign of Atlatl Cauac, because the victms date to the period of the supposed invasion of some mayan cities and may end the controversy. There were times of trade beetwen Teotihuacan and tha maya but there were also times of serious war.Harioris 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly so, Harioris, but there are AFAIK alternative interpretations and views still published on the nature and extent of teotihuacano influence in southern Mesoamerica, recent finds notwithstanding. To present a more balanced view we'll need input from a range of recent publications- you seem to have some particular ones in mind, if so then by all means document them here and let's have a look at them.--cjllw | TALK 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy part

message: I added this glyph as a FU image (altho it's likely PD), but here's one claimig PD + a photo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a crop of just the artifact, now in the article, but there's a license problem with the original. I've written the OP hoping to resolve this. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image to add
Talk:Andrew Hill (pianist)

message: I deleted this sentence: "He obtained a doctorate in music from Colgate University of Hamilton and served as the university's composer in residence from 1970 to 1972." Correction to Times article mentioned the error. chomsky1 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed mention of doctorate
Talk:Codex Borbonicus

message: It is now well established that Aztec writing is not pictorial but uses logograms as well as phonetic syllabograms - though the degree of phoneticism varies between different codices. I am not aware of any specific studies of phoneticism in the Borbonicus, but it seems to be to be a problematic misrepresentation of the current state of knowledge to claim that it is only pictorial and logographic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoneticism
Talk:Fort Wolters

message: Removed the a in front of summer camp and added an and in front of a National Guard to make it clear that the summer camp is part of the NG and not just YMCA or Boy Scouts or something like that.   Luxomni 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Linking page (US POW CAMPS) list this camp as a POW camp, but the article doesn't include any information on this.  Can any one add to it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.138.232 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Kʼinich Kan Bahlam II

message: The article says: "May 23, 635 – February 20, 702" but there's no citation. Some articles have dates converted using Thompson, 584285, correlation and/or use the Proleptic Gregorian calendar. For this reason the article should give the dates as Long Counts. I've added a  for this reason.  Senor Cuete (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates?
Template talk:Infobox cloud type

message: What are the parameters for "Ice content"? Inks.LWC (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice content

message: Shouldn't "thinkness" be "thickness"? User:HopsonRoad 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written thickness already. Chongkian (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinkness?
Talk:Yohl Ikʼnal

message: Not for the first time, a Maya anniversary has been marked by Wikipedia, and it turns out the date was wrong. Today, 23rd December, Wiki front page states that Yohl Ik'Nal acceded today in 583.
The dates of her accession and death, 23 December and 4 November, are not consistent. She acceded to the throne on 9.7.10.3.8. Using GMT this is 21 Dec Gregorian, 19 Dec Julian. She died on 9.8.11.6.12. This is 5 Nov Gregorian, 2 Nov Julian. If we use GMT+2 the accession date is indeed 23 Dec Gregorian, but the death date now moves to 7 Nov Gregorian (which is 4 November Julian). The best I can figure is that the convention used is GMT+2 and the first date is Gregorian while the second date is Julian.
All Maya dates should be standardized to GMT Gregorian, so the Queen's accession date be given as 21 December 583 and her death as 5 November 604. (Or standardized to Julian, so dates can be correlated with Western history). In any case every LC date should state it's GMT+2 if it is so. The wiki page for the long count seems to say the +2 correlation is a minority position, but many Maya dates in wiki pages seem to prefer it, without saying so.
Silas Maxfield (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent dates
Talk:Sak Kʼukʼ

message: Mayanists have not settled on a standard way to convert Long Counts to western calendar dates. Many of these found in books about the Maya use either the Proleptic Gregorian calendar, the highly suspect Thompson 584285 correlation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count), or are just plain wrong. The Proleptic Gregorian calendar is not used outside of mayanism - for example by historians and astronomers. There is basically no evidence for the 584285 correlation. Wikipedia hasn't settled on a standard western calendar but the templates that are widely used in articles about the Maya use the GMT correlation. For these reasons editors have decided to use Long Counts and vague dates (year month) in many articles like this one. Also edits require reliable citations. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates
Talk:Classical Nahuatl

message: Try to at least leave short summaries of sections when moving their contents to sub-articles. A section with nothing but a single link isn't all that informative.
Peter Isotalo 12:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some recent additions, and in particular the sentence:
:"However, few communities still speak Classical Nahuatl as an evolved dialect of the language (such as 15th century Spanish to modern)."
could be read to imply there remain native speakers. Perhaps it's just a matter of rephrasing the intended statement, but it's not clear to me just what distinction is being claimed here. This seems to be akin to saying, "communities still speak Elizabethan English as an evolved dialect of the language"..?
Would a clearer statement be along the lines of "Classical Nahuatl is the antecedent of several contemporary dialects"? --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such statements were already found in the article. I have removed allusions to current native speakers. Speakers in Milpa Alta and Morelos most certainly do not speak Classical Nahuatl - to say so would be a misunderstaning of the term Classical Nahuatl it self. Classical nahuatl is now only a literary language.However it is true that since Classical Nahuatl was a central Dialect it is most closely related to the other central Dialects i.e. Those of Morelos and the State of Mexico.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native speakers?
Talk:Tilmàtli

message: Is tilma accepted as an english word? If it is not then I would reccommend changing its spelling because it is also not a nahuatl word. The word is tilmàtli or tilmahtli (the accent on the first spelling indicates a glottal stop which can also be indicated by an h). In the possessed form the absolutive suffix -tli is dropped but then it needs a possessor prefix e.g. "notilmah" my tilmahtli. tilma makes no sense as nahuatl word, nouns must be marked for absolutive or for possession this one is the pure noun root.--Maunus 10:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a loan word in Mexican Spanish by this point.  It probably is not an English word in any case. I'd support changing the name of this article to either of the Nahuatl romanizated spellings, since there's no reason the English language encyclopedia should treat Spanish with preference over Nahuatl. Cleduc 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "tilma" is used in English-language literature regarding the Virgin of Guadalupe. It is also canon, appearing in the OED and, apparently, the unabridged version of Merriam-Webster's, although not in the free version. I suggest we move it back.--Rockero 23:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur in reverting to "tilma".  It is clearly a loan-word into English and has been used with perfectly general reference (i.e. without specific reference to OLG) since at least 1853 according to the citation in the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edn. vol. XVIII (1989). As for the OLG literature in English, it features in the title of a work from 1981 (Callahan). The Nahuatl word, by comparison, is very infrequently encountered, although I have no objection to retaining it in the article by way of explaining the etymology. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled