lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Alternative biology

message: The reason I created this article was to have a broader focus than alternative biochemistry, but with the same kind of idea -- looking at the stuff of life. This article title is based on that article, and not on a specific area of research. Alternative biochemistry's focus is too narrow to include things like RNA world hypothesis, which uses convential organic biomolecules in a very different (not to mention acellular) way. Also it includes artificial life, which would not fit in the "alternative biochemistry" article. 
These are some guidelines (not rules) for what may be included:
Extremophiles certainly are worth a mention, as many have metabolisms which were once the stuff of science fiction, and certainly are an alternative to convential biology.
Yes, there's no reason to stop at biological systems, and alternate morphologies can be included also. However, I'd like to draw a line through fanciful creatures and focus mainly on those where the author has given or implied a biological reason for their alternative morphology (and they should have a morphology that is novel, and unlike extant or even extinct terrestrial life). For example, the xenomorphs of Alien might be mentioned for having acid for blood (which is novel and had a defensive purpose), but not for their smooth elongated heads (whose primary purpose appeared to be the serving of Giger's phallic style).
Along the same lines, alternative behaviours could be included also.
Ultimately the article is not mine, however, so please rip it to shreds, add stuff, change stuff, rename it, and include what you will. —Pengo  talk · contribs 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of this article 

message: This article cites no sources. The article is in danger of being deleted as original research. --JWSchmidt 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lighten up, it's just a stub. Which of the statements in it need citations? The only thing I can think of offhand would be a source indicating the title of the article isn't a neologism. Bryan 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start would be a citation for a peer-reviewed article about "Alternative biology". --JWSchmidt 04:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite sources
Talk:Quranic literalism

message: the statement "Salafis believe that the Qur'an should not be interpreted allegorically" needs to be clarified and justified because from what i know this is untrue. if you are talking about sifaat (attributes of allah) then that is different to saying how the verses of the qur'aan should be interpreted. ITAQALLAH 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden is upon you to prove that it is not true. Are you saying that Salafis are not fundamentalists who oppose any metaphysical interpretation of Qur'an? Their own literature even states this, which is one of the reasons why any type of Sufism is considered haraam amongst them. Alavian 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the burden is upon the claimant, not upon the one trying to refute the claimant. the opposite of literalism is not "metaphysical", it is allegorical. provide your evidence that "their own literature even states this", as there are many "salafi" websites which affirm the existence of majaaz aayat  in the qur'aan. instead of reverting why not provide the evidences in place of the fact tag? the best that can be said about it is that there may be differing opinions within "salafism" (if the opposition to majaaz was not just semantic) ITAQALLAH 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: literalism

message: This has to be one of the most one-sided, poorly written articles i've seen on this site.  It is as though the original editors threw the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy right out the window.  The comment above was spot on, and the bias in this article must be removed. MezzoMezzo 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the rewrite is much better than the previous version in general. it confuses literalism a bit i think... for literalism (haqīqi) is not always equivalent to the dhāhir (most apparent). the principle of ithbat `ala dhāhir is what is generally ascribed to the corpus of athariyya. ITAQALLAH 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atrocious
Talk:Rosita Spencer-Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

message: I think she uses Rosita as her name. Suedois 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :She was born as Countess Rosita Douglas in Madrid, Spain, the younger daughter of Count Carl Ludvig Douglas (1908–1961), a Swedish nobleman and diplomat who was Royal Swedish Ambassador to Brazil, and his Prussian wife Ottora Maria Haas-Heye (1910–2001), maternal granddaughter of Prince Philip, 1st Prince of Eulenburg and Hertefeld, by his wife Augusta, Countess Sandels.
Sandels redirects to Johan August Sandels, who died 16 years before Philipp, Prince of Eulenburg was born. Is this about the same Sandels family or a different one? JIP | Talk 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Replying to myself after investigation. This is the same Sandels family. Augusta, Princess of Eulenburg (Countess Sandels) was the grand-daughter of Johan August Sandels. I have fixed the wikilink to point to her instead of her grandfather. JIP | Talk 19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandels
Talk:Playground games

message: It seems that this page hasn't found its true identity. Should it list only games that are played on a typical playground (with a play structure with swings and monkey bars and such) or should it include all group games played by children. I opt for the former. When I look at this page, I see sections that simply lead to other pages (like Tag) and sections that act like a real subsection (like the Ball games section). I think playground games needs to be more thoroughly defined before this article can be refined. --Canadian Joeldude 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What belongs on this page?

message: "Many of these games, including Tag, are now outlawed in schools."  Where is this the case?  Is there a 
source for this claim, or is it just hearsay?  And what is the justification for this ban? Wardog 12:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag outlawed?
Talk:US Field artillery team

message: What is a "unity canion - gun"? This edit into the lead makes no sense, does not belong in the lead and was removed. Unless it is clarified in the body of the text, with a complete inline citation, it will be removed. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk 11:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of unclear edit in lead
Talk:John Forte

message: I recently found a photograph and the longest write-up about John that I've ever seen here: https://www.pulpartists.com/Forte.html
That said, I'm not sure how to best incorporate this information and I don't know if the photograph is free to use.
Any thoughts?
Best,
Alex  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxjhnsn (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Biography on-line
Talk:Francisco López de Gómara

message: I agree with Cinabrius in that this article should be clean up and improve to undo the tone of the original Catholic Encyclodpedia. Look for example at this phrase: "Gómara fell into serious errors and in many instances sinned gravely against historical truth." Dennishidalgo (talk) 1:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of this article
Talk:Ōtomo no Yakamochi

message: Surely Dazaifu is meant here, no? bamse (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daisaifu 
Category talk:Catholic liturgy

message: :Category:Catholic liturgy → :Category:Roman Catholic liturgy – In keeping with the name of the main article page (Roman Catholic Church), this category refers specifically to that denomination and not to churches in the Catholic tradition generally. Fishhead64 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Fishhead64 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Fishhead64 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Note: There is a simultaneous discussion occurring at WP:CFD. As I understand it, this discussion properly belongs there. —Mira 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Category talk:Religious (Catholicism)

message: :Category:Catholic religious life → :Category:Roman Catholic religious life – In keeping with the name of the main article page (Roman Catholic Church), this category refers specifically to that denomination and not to churches in the Catholic tradition generally. Fishhead64 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Fishhead64 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Fishhead64 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Note: There is a simultaneous discussion occurring at WP:CFD. As I understand it, this discussion properly belongs there. —Mira 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Kerry Stokes

message: this section starts with "... in Western Australia that Stokes established his media career."  His ownership of SEVENetc certainly qualifies him as having a "media career" but that term is normally reserved for actors, journo's, personalities & presenters rather than owners.  Of course he has done a handful of public lectures but he is normally regarded as reclusive or shy, so if anyone can think of better way of wording that sentence, it would be a small improvement.--Glen Dillon (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Interests 

message: As far as I can tell this article ignores the C7 case. This  oversight calls into question whether this article truly presents a NPOV.  Hopefully someone with expertise in this area can fix this; I might add something soon myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr john luke (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C7 Case 
Talk:Counterattack

message: First, I think it's more properly "fended off attack", not "defended off", and I don't think a counter-attack requires there have been a successful defense. A counter-attack can take place any time the momentum of the attacking force is stalled long enough to organize a counter-attack. Such as the Germans making repeated counter-attacks while being forced back across France during WWII. They weren't "successful" on the defense, except maybe locally and temporarily, but they still launched counter-attacks to disrupt and slow the Allied advance. In the Battle of the Somme, after certain units took the first line of trenches on the 1st, they were immediately met with counter-attacks from Germans in the 2nd line. They hadn't even attacked the 2nd line in many cases, having stopped due to exhaustion and disorganization and losses. I suppose one could argue that constitutes "successful defense", but it's a bit tenuous. I think it's more like "a force that launches an attack of it's own following the enemy's failure to fully defeat them in their own assault"...although even that's problematic. What is it called when a force is totally routed, but reinforcements are rushed in and halt the enemy with an immediate attack before they can consolidate their gains? AnnaGoFast (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Successfully defended"? 

message: Clearly this was a counter-attack, in the sense that the Germans had attacked first, but given that it happened several years later it really doesn't seem to match the sense of the article; which is generally about tactics immediately after an attack. Thoughts? - Snori (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bagration

message: Counter offensive is just a synonym of counter attack; the only difference that some sources use the term in "larger scale" (small units counter attack, large do counter offensive), but this is not consistent, and generally those terms are synonymous. Note that counter strike is just a disambig (in case anyone wonders). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Counter-offensive]]
Talk:Archer (tank destroyer)

message: The article states the breech intruded into the drivers position when the gun was fired, yet goes on to state the driver stayed in position in case the vehicle needed to be driven to a new location in a hurry. If the latter is true then wouldn't he be in danger of a fatal smack "round the back of 'is 'ead"? Andy L
143.167.143.33 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The tank mounting for the 17 pdr had a reduced travel recoil so it did not recoil so far backwards as the towed gun, hence no, the driver was not in danger of being hit by the recoiling breech.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion as to the drivers position 

message: The Archer was capable of using this advanced round in suitable conditions.  Penetration was 190mm at 500 yd and 30 deg slope which was more than capable of taking out any German tank.  Just dont stand infront of the Archer when it,fires,
.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.71.190 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot APDS round
Talk:Alfred's Kitchen

message: Surely this article title  needs a qualifier - 'Western Australia' ??User:SatuSuro 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be merged into the Guildford, Western Australia article as there isnt any other articles that need to link to this subject matter directly.  Overall the article reads as neutral, but it does border on commercial advertising, by creating a section on historical landmarks in Guildford Alfreds would to be included along with Garrick theatre, Rose and Crown, Guildford grammer and other buildings. Gnangarra 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Into the Labyrinth (Dead Can Dance album)

message: Does anyone know of any connection between the song The Ubiquitous Mr. Lovegrove on this album and the Inspiral Carpets song Lovegrove from their Devil Hopping album which contains the lyrics 'The Ubiquitous Mr. Lovegrove'? It seems a highly improbable phrase to arise through mere coincidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.232.146.39 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovegrove/Inspiral Carpets Connection 

message: What languages apart from English are used in this CD?  The Jade Knight 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None, glossolalia, Lisa Gerrard "sings in tongues", like singing la-la-la but more elaborated. See the topic at Dead Can Dance and Lisa Gerrard, or the DCDWithin FAQ. (Maybe worth a mention in the article, though.) -- 62.147.38.12 09:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I've now covered that topic in the article. -- 62.147.38.12 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I found that out after asking this, but thanks!  The Jade Knight 23:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages? 

message: I think this statement is too subjective and shouldn't be included.  I did not know when they were together, and when they were not, and did not find Aion to feel broken or not uplifting ...
"As a result, where Aion seemed to bear the weight of Gerrard and Perry's broken amorous relationship, this one sounds more serene and spiritually uplifting."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.166.231 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 
Talk:Section (military unit)

message: In the US Army, it is a half-platoon. In the British Army and its Commonwealth allies a Section is a unit equivalent to a US Army squad.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Section (disambiguation)]] 

message: The following moved from the article. If someone knows what to do with it, please feel free. --Rifleman 82 16:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from article

message: British section reads like it was written by a cadet (no offense to original writer intended). It implies a rigid system of rank dependent structure when infact this is not the case. The rank structure is a theoretical one and units rarely achieve this level of consistancy. Sections can end up being commanded by a 2nd Lieutenant, Sgt or S/Sgt. Different regiments employ different tactics which is infact probably the greatest determining factor in section size/composition. To say an infantry section consists of 8 men is also implicating a level of rigidity which simply doesnt exist. Section size varies considerably with sections ranging from 4 to 12 men. 12 men could become two 6 man sections of two 3 man fireteams respectively. The British army tends to work more with larger unit structures than the US using what are called manouver support groups, in principle its the same basic idea as sections/fireteams only on a platoon/section or even company/platoon level.90.196.237.192 (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely especially with Army 2020 Is it still eight men per section? http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23213.aspx Phd8511 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  British section is suggestive 

message: In the "other" section, it is present the statement ... make up a flight, known as a staffel in the Luftwaffe. I do not agree with this definition. As a quick check, try and follow the wikilink in the phrase: you will verify on Wiki too that Staffel is the equivalent of a squadron, which is a bigger organisation level. --EH101 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Staffel

message: Could there be references for the police section.94.1.6.78 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police 

message: Could a better picture be found?
I don't think the current one is right because:
a)This article is called: 'Section (military unit) '. According to the information of the current photograph, (which can only be read when the picture is clicked-on). it is of a platoon.
and
b)There is no mention of the Latvian army in the article.
RASAM (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture at the beginning of the article
Talk:Norton A. Schwartz

message: Anybody want to tackle this article to make it an encyclopedia article instead of a resume?  Corvus cornixtalk 21:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The decorations have an error. The AFOUSA shows a Combat V and 4 clusters. There should be two AFOUSA ribbons, one with V and three clusters (Outstanding Unit with Valor award times 4), and one without any devices (a peacetime award). A small detail, but getting it correct is what an encyclopedia is about.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The only thing that I can add is that he is the first jewish leader of the USAF
maybe a move related to the scandal at the AF academy involving antisemitic officers.More likely hes simply the best person in general(no pun intended) to lead the modern usaf.  This discussion is related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic.
raquel samper jewish community murcia spain  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is also the first "trash hauler" in the 100+ years of the Air Force and its predecessors to become its head of service too, rather than a "shooter". In the wake of the nuclear policy gaffes, imo that's what Gates/DOD was looking for. Both possibilities are speculation as to motives and therefore either POV, OR, or both, but worth mentioning as "firsts". (Trash hauler, btw, refers to his career path. He was an airlift pilot, not a fighter or bomber pilot.)--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  N S  

message: He is a great public speaker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.142.233 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mellow  

message: I've seen this guy in the opening of the new building of Lithuanian embassy in the US. Is he descendant of Lithuanian Jews(Litvaks) by any chance?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.79.26 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeha 

message: Unless is shifted elsewhere per New York times. This search didn't counter that, but didn't search all returns. So keep eyes open. CarolMooreDC 00:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Retiring 2012?
Talk:Gonaïves

message: I cannot confirm that the image at the top of the infobox is actually of Gonaives. Most images of the city show a mid-sized, low-rise settlement characterized by informal / ad hoc housing typologies. 
see - https://diarionomade.wordpress.com/category/haiti/gonaives-haiti/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.68.170 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skyline Image 

message: Shouldn’t the (total) metropolitan area population be larger than the population of the commune alone? ZFT (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population data mistake in the infobox?
Talk:Euler's three-body problem

message: Needs references Doidimais Brasil 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References needed

message: The Euler integral is not in the same coordinates...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.234.10 (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: That section was actually empty until I just added some material.  The quantum version is harder than the classical
version.  Nonetheless, I thought it worthwhile to mention that some breakthrough was achieved for the Hydrogen molecule-ion:
the energy eigenvalues are a generalization of the Lambert W function.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.171.96 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum Mechanical Description

message: Could someone start this off with a very simple description paragraph about what it is we're discussing?  Or maybe create a topic on simple.wikipedia.org?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Kress (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, had a hard time understanding what this was about from the intro.  Article getting looked up due to popular culture reference here:  http://xkcd.com/613/  --Stéphane Charette (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplicity

message: There should be a reference to the "Euler Archive" - use Google. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Euler: Archive, Translation, Demonstration

message: Euler wrote a great deal.  Whenever any of his works are referred to, it would be well to give a link to the corresponding information page of the Euler Archive, which will link to the original and maybe to translations.  The URL of such a link will be of the form http://eulerarchive.maa.org/pages/E337.html. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Euler papers 

message: The article says that Euler's problem is solvable in closed form, and that the two massive may be fixed or moving in circles around the common barycenter (as in the circular restricted three-body problem). However, it is not clear for me that the second case is solvable in closed form. If that was the case, it would be easy to prove that equilibrium at the Lagrangian points L4 and L5 is Lyapunov stable.
According to another source that I checked,  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980AmJPh..48..297W  the massive particles involved on Euler's problem are fixed.
I'll edit to eliminate the moving case. (Marcosaedro (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two massive bodies: fixed vs. circular motion 

message: The expression for the second constant of motion in the Euler's problem was taken from the cited Whittaker's textbook where it apparently contains a typo. I checked it by hand and found that there must be opposite signs in two last terms. I ask experienced participants to check it independently. TheGrysha (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second constant of motion