lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Military Frontier

message: What is it about? As far as I know this term in Croatian and the Military Border has nothing to do with the political term. Mikola22 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is more appropriate to link to Cordon sanitaire (international relations) (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that's right either. "Cordon militaire" is used for part of Military Frontier Kordun - Cordon. As for term "Cordon sanitaire", it is some kind of area for defense against infectious diseases. "Godine 1978., od 26. do 28. listopada, Zbor liječnika Hrvatske i Zavod za zaštitu zdravlja grada Zagreba održali su simpozij u povodu 250. godišnjice vojnokrajiškog sanitarnog kordona. Naime, godine 1728., 22. listopada, car i kralj Karlo VI.(III.) patentom je propisao stalnu obranu od zaraznih bolesti iz Osmanskog Carstva..In 1978, from October 26 to 28, the Croatian Medical Association and the Institute for Health Protection of the City of Zagreb held a symposium on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Military Krajina Sanitary Cordon. Namely, in 1728, on October 22, the emperor and king Charles VI (III.) prescribed in a patent a permanent defense against infectious diseases from the Ottoman Empire" page 72,73 and 78(In some of its aspects, it was almost »hermetically« closed (Cordon Sanitaire  Mikola22 (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If the purpose is to protect against diseases, then it is cordon sanitaire (medicine). (t · c) buidhe 11:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be it. Mikola22 (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cordon sanitaire (politics) 

message: I cannot access the publication referenced in this chapter. This publication  is on page 1 mentioning 272 755 Orthodox inhibitants and 402 332 Catolic inhibitants. 
I tend to remove the publication with no access and different numbers than this one, thus I'm starting this dicussion. Bilseric (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census 1857
Talk:Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld

message: The last edits have added bad characters into the text, I think. At least Firefox does not know what to do with them. Please fix or revert. Awolf002 22:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad characters

message: (Redirected from Anna Maria Mannerheim) ? Why? Anna Maria Mannerheim is not same person!--85.253.60.235 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_4, specifically "Retarget to her husband's page  unless there is evidence that she is independently notable. (And remove the circular redirects.) The spousal relationship is more relevant than an apparently distant family relationship.". Do you feel she is worthy of her own article? Kingturtle = (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Maria Mannerheim

message: "Baron" is almost identical to "friherre". The title would normally not be used in Swedish anyway, so it's doubly wrong to name a person as "Baron X friherre Y". Unless there is some better opinion, I'll remove both from the introduction and make an explanatory note instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.207.72 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong name
Talk:Allegorical sculpture

message: All symbolic sculpture would be "allegorical" in this present sense, including the Winged Victory of Samothrace. Wikipedia has articles symbol, emblem and allegory that are intended to disentangle the  interrelated meanings. --Wetman 22:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

message: :"*In the The Four Captives, also known as The Four Defeated Nations, four larger-than-life bronze figures, symbolize the four nations defeated at the time of the Treaty of Nijmegen. Each represents one of the ages of man and a different attitude to captivity. The countries represented are Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, Brandenburg and Holland."<BR>
over here because I can't really place it.  There was a monument to Henri IV, from something like 1635, that had captive Spain, Holy Roman Empire, Turkey and Holland on it, but it seems to have nothing to do with the Treaty of Nijmegen.  So I figure let's leave it here until such time as we know more about it.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've moved this section 

message: taking place at the :Category:Allegorical sculptures in the United States talk page about whether (for example) statues of famous men that include allegorical figures as supporting members of the cast, as it were, should be included in the category or not.  We really would like to hear from you.  Carptrash (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a discussion
Talk:William F. Nast

message: and  describe a clergyman named William Nast who was born in 1807 in Germany and lived in Cincinnati in 1840.  It is possible, but I have yet to confirm it, that this William Nast is William F. Nast's father. slambo 23:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Stub for William Nast (Methodism) now exists.--Jerzy•t 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Way cool, thanks for verifying and finding more information on his family connections.  I found a little more today and added it too. Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible parentage
Talk:Abram Ioffe

message: can someone provide a citation for the claim about Einstein Salsb 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't belong in this article anyway.  --Blainster 12:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim about Einstein

message: "That year Ioffe stated he saw the names of two authors, Einstein – Marić, on the Annus Mirabilis papers when they were submitted."
This is erroneous. Joffe did not say he saw the original papers, nor that there were two authors' names on the 1905 papers. For refutation of this story, see:
http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm
https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf
"This seems to support the theory that the work was a co-authorship between Einstein and his wife.[1]" [Ref. "Einstein's Wife", PBS, 2003]
The "Einstein's Wife" documentary has been discredited for its numerous inaccuracies and misconceptions:
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/12/einsteins_wife_the_relative_motion_of_facts.html
I shall amend the paragraph appropriately. Esterson (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joffe and Einstein's 1905 papers 
Talk:Don't Fear the Roofer

message: Would it be better if these were put underneath the one heading, like the most of the other Simpsons' articles episodes?Bitbitz.xx 11:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs & Plot holes ? 

message: I think the plot of this episode was similar to Sesame Street. You have a character (Homer/Big Bird) telling his friends about a new friend (Ray/Snuffleuphagus (sp)), but his friends don't believe he exists, and go out of their way to convince him that this friend doesn't actually exist. And when they do see that the friend is real, profusely apologize for doubting him.
No, I think it's more a take-off on A Beautiful Mind, because, like in that film, Homer is accused of imagining things and is forced to go through electroshock therapy. I'm amazed nobody's picked up on this yet. -Adamzanzie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamzanzie (talk • contribs) 05:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of biomedical terms

message: I don't know why this VfD went ahead like this.  The articles deleted were unique and should not ever be deleted.  I've restored them.  Don't try to delete them again.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On reading the various deletion policies, I don't see a provision whereby unique articles can be unilaterally undeleted. Please list them on WP:VFU before undeleting again. — Dan | Talk 01:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't see any sense in arguing over it.  I undeleted.  You deleted again.  That is enough for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is bad
Talk:Anonymous publication

message: This article doesn't give much useful content. The sections in italics are odd—are they intended to be bullet points, and what do they mean? Also, although the title is "anonymous publication" the article seems to place more emphasis on irrepressible publication. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Since everything that was here was already covered at anonymity in plenty more detail, I've gone ahead and redirected this there.  (redirect is necessary to preserve edit history) Peyna 17:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Talk:Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny

message: I would like to comment on this book, in particular, the issue of directionality and how to fix it up.  I don't think Wright has it quite right the way it stands in the book.  Is this an appropriate issue to add to the article about the book?
Montalvo 23:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. you can't insert your own thoughts into the article. That's Original Research. Now, if you found a book review that cited concerns that are similar to yours, or if someone else has made a similar criticism, then you can certainly cite those authors' words in this article. Or write your criticism on your own website and link to it in the "external links" section. --goethean ॐ 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

message: Any Wright fans that can start an article on The Moral Animal?
--1000Faces 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Moral Animal 

message: I think this is a horrible article.  I came here wanting to know, "What's in the book, Non-zero?"  Who is it, who wrote it, what are the ideas in it, what has it's role been in society?
Instead, I see what appears to be an argument between N faceless people, masquerading as an encyclopedia article about a book.
Worse, the first comment on this page is someone saying, "Hey, I want to argue against the ideas in the book;  Is this a good place to do it?"  Of course it's not!
Can someone just write an article about the book Non-Zero?
Do you all know that this isn't a place for fans or opposition, but rather, to collaboratively make encyclopedia articles?
Irritated, LionKimbro  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionKimbro (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Lots of WP:POV here, and WP:OR. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Article 

message: While reading the article, I wondered whether International Relations theory should be mentioned in this article, since the whole idea of the nonzero sum game has been researched and discussed extensively in International Relations. There are whole schools of theories stemming from this idea, so why not alert the average user that Mr. Wright wasn't the first one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.62.107.134 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Relations
Talk:The Bridges of Madison County

message: The Bridges of Madison County is the largest selling novel in history with more than 60 million copies sold. I think this is incorrect. The Lord of the Rings has had considerably higher sales. In any case it is unsourced. DES 23:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that, among novels, the record is still held by Gone With the Wind. Many other novels have sold larger numbers of books than Bridges. In any case, no novel has ever sold sixty million copies. The best selling book of all time is, of course, the Bible. 207.237.240.221 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that page for The Bridges of Madison County incorrectly states that the book has been sold in 50 milions copies, although it's correct in that it became a bestseller. A source: Bestselling books places the book among books sold in 10 to 20 milions copies stating that the book sold in 12 milions copies. So I have the temptation to correct the article. 77.79.222.138 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect?

message: Literary Genre : 
Reason : 49.144.39.169 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative nonfiction
Talk:Hardboard

message: Should they be merged? Masonite is only a type of hardboard so it seems like it could constitute an article in its own with a some more information.
-c14
:The only editor to comment was against it. It's been in place for a few months with no action, so I removed the merge tag. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Numerous sources confirm the common method of tempering hardboard by coating with linseed oil & heating, as seen here, here, here, and here for instance. I don't cite these sources in the article because they are primarily commercial sites and the information is not signed, but the immersion method used in the 40s and 50s is now sourced, and I hope to find an authoritative reference for the modern method in the next week. I can find no support for the claim that hardboard is tempered by coating with polyurethane varnish. Ewulp (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of tempering
Talk:Disentanglement puzzle

message: Any thoughts on whether burr puzzles and ball-in-cage puzzles actually belong in the list of disentanglement puzzles?  Dalgety & Hordern's classification places them in "Interlocking Puzzles" which is distinct from their "Tanglement Puzzles," although I don't know how well their classification is accepted.
In my mind (as a casual collector of disentanglement puzzles), there are two features which distinguish burr puzzles from disentanglement puzzles.  First, disentanglement puzzles are not rigid in the assembled state; burr puzzles are.  Second, all relevant features of disentanglement puzzles are visible in the assembled state; this is not so in burr puzzles, where the shape of each piece is not fully visible in the assembled state.  However, I admit I currently have no basis for these two features as attributes of disentanglement puzzles other than my own intuition and the classification I linked to above. Chuck 19:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I think you have hit on the main reason that -Ril- has been putting these articles up on VfD. The apparent fact is that the contributor has largely invented his own classification scheme which is, at least in some places, at odds with other, more authoritative schemes. Since classification is just about the only content of the article, you can perhaps understand why there has been some desire to delete them or merge the descriptive sections into a larger article like mechanical puzzles. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Having heard no objection, I will be bold and remove them.  If anyone disagrees, please cite a source. Chuck 17:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
::Looks good to me. The less cruft we have here, the easier it will be to merge this into a more general, more useful article when the time comes.  —HorsePunchKid→龜 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burr puzzles 

message: Keep vote on vfd per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/KarlSchererRevisited2. Please wait a bit before putting this up again. --Woohookitty 02:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vfd

message: before taking a picture of your puzzle to post on wikipedia?--345Kai (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got pictures of a few of mine at  against white backgrounds.  Let me know if you think a couple of these would be better for the article.  I haven't released them under a Wikipedia-compatible license yet, but would be willing to do so. Chuck (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't you vacuum 

message: horseshoe-ring puzzles sold in gift shops are a fond childhood memory. This specific puzzle isn't mentioned on any of the other pages, so it might make sense to note them here. --Zqrrld (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  horseshoe Disentanglement puzzle  

message: Is a "puzzle" with no solution really a puzzle, or is it just a piece of sculpture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  If there is no solution, then it's not a puzzle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible?
Talk:Rattle puzzle

message: This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus, but some merging/redirecting might be in order. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer. -- BD2412 talk 00:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
It was nominated again on the same day the previous listing was closed.  The discussion is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3.  The result again was no consensus.  This doesn't stop people being bold and merging on their own account.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD results
Talk:Wire-and-string puzzle

message: This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus, but some merging/redirecting might be in order. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer. -- BD2412 talk 00:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
A second debate also ended with keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD results
Talk:Belleview Biltmore

message: This article links to George Bush, which is a disambiguation page.  Did George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush stay at the Belleview Biltmore? GoCardinal 01:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which George Bush? 

message: *This article is a duplicate of Belleview-Biltmore Hotel, so I'm merging the two under that Article title, with a Re-Direct from here. JGHowes talk -  03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles
Talk:Overbrook High School (Philadelphia)

message: Reverted back to the Philadelphia High School page.  To anybody from the Pine Hill school, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE refer to the Overbrook Senior High School article.  Leave this one alone.
I'm an alumna of OSHS, and I created the article to distinguish it from the OHS in Philly.
--DodgerOfZion 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed! 

message: Perhaps Jerry Blavat may have attended Overbrook for a while, but so far there is no documentation for that of any kind, not even in Blavat's recent 2011 memoir, where he only refers to getting his "education from the street."Mwprods (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirming Blavat, other alumni 

message: I found an archived PDF of the boundary of 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023900/https://webapps.philasd.org/sp_files/boundary_maps/4020.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundary map from 2012 (PDF, archived) 

message: I deleted entry for my late uncle Paul "Hook" Wallace whom I loved, but also know well enough to realize there was never any documentation that he was ever a "professional" basketball player after his outstanding years at OHS in 1940s as an All-Public high school player. If he ever did play pro ball, it might possibly (?) have been occasionally on pseudo "teams" pitted against the Harlem Globetrotters. 70.107.78.39 (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Wallace
Talk:Common whitetail

message: Hmm, that picture looks more like a Twelve-spotted Skimmer to me. --Arkuat 01:11, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
:If you have strong knowledge on this, please change it - it was id'd from a book with only a limited range of species shown.  seglea 17:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it for a picture that I took myself yesterday --Qazwer00 2006 June 18 
I'm more comfortable working with text than with pictures, but perhaps to teach myself more about how to work with graphics in our Wikipedia, I'll try to find a good picture of a Common Whitetail  (unencumbered by copyright, of course) and bring it up here.  In the meantime, perhaps this picture could be moved to Twelve-spotted Skimmer  after someone doublechecks it against Google images.  Note that both these species are sexually dimorphic, just to add to the confusion.  And by the way, thanks for working on dragonfly articles. --Eric Forste AKA Arkuat 02:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The image currently in the taxobox is a juvenile male that hasn't got its white tail yet, not a female.  Females have a different pattern on the wings, very similar to Libellula puchella, but with a shorter body. —Celithemis 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox image

message: I've uploaded an image of a female to commons. Please use if it's appropriate. :Image:FemaleCommonWhitetail.jpg--fleela ±alk 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice photo, but it's another male. —Celithemis 22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female 

message: I uploaded a photo of mating whitetails to commons, but I don't know how to create a link; new to Wiki today.
EinsteinsdogEinsteinsdog 21:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find it over there—what is the filename, or what is your username on Commons? —Celithemis 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see, it's here on Wikipedia rather than on Commons.  That's a really interesting behavioral shot, but since you won't be able to see much at thumbnail size and this article is already a bit overloaded with images, I'd suggest that you do upload it on Commons (here) so that it can be added to the gallery page there. —Celithemis 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mating
Talk:Muslim forms of Marriage

message: Whell, its not about the Islamic VIEW's on marriage.
1: In my pov, Misyar marriage has nothing to do with Islam, its a wahabi inovation that will go to hell. But thats my pov. And most shias.
However, its a MUSLIM version of marriage, since Wahabis are Muslims.
2: Its not about VIEWs, rather options. Or forms.
--Striver 01:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Every different view is a form.  Therefore there should be a large section on Islamic view of marriage about Nikkah on that page, and then smaller ones on the less important ones and they should all use Template:Main to direct to the main page.  That's how it should be done.  Forms and options are views... views created those forms and options... right?  Plus, it's putting your work on a more prominent article.  Why not? gren 01:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't read what you have written fully so I don't know if I'd advocate any changes to it.  I do know that the content is about Islam and marriage, and even thoug specialized it should go to that page first.  That page is the hub, and we already have a nikkah page linked from it, so we'll just have the others linked too.  Of course nikkah should be the most prominent and all.  Just make sure to have sources for the others otherwise it might be called into question. gren 21:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic view of marriage
Talk:Balloon helicopter

message: This looks like a literal translation (probably done with an online translator) of the de:Ballonhelikopter article. It might be easier, therefore, to translate this entry directly from the German (if, of course, you speak the language.) 
Actually, it might be easiest to just rewrite the entry from scratch; balloon helicopters aren't very hard to describe. If I have the time tomorrow then maybe I'll do it myself. - Christiant 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at cleaning it up, but I've never actually played with one of these so I might have made some mistakes.  Ajnewbold 22:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To whomever copyedits this
Talk:Rally Sweden

message: Apologies if I am doing this wrong (very new), but did a bit of research about conflicting facts and all and think I am supposed to put this info here... 
I think you are linking to the wrong Ingvar CARLSSON - that Ingvar was a politician, and born in 1934, whereas the rally driver Ingvar was born in 1947 (according to http://www.rallybase.nl/index.php?type=profile&driverid=2846)
Hope this helps
Leon
LeonPolak 01:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment