lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Reformed Christianity

message: Turretin is noted as a Calvinist theologian on his entry, but he is not listed here under 'influential' Calvinist theologians. Should he be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:4000:50F0:39EF:A8AD:A6BD:DBCC (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the issue is that we only have the categories of Reformers/20th century/contemporary, and Turretin was post-Reformed. If we go broader we can also include John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Hodge. StAnselm (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis Turretin? 

message: I would like to revisit this topic after catching up on the discussion in March 2022.
It is my judgment that "Reformed Christianity" is the more appropriate name. This article is devoted to the "major branch of Protestantism", as opposed to other branches like Lutheranism or Anglicanism. 
My rationale:
* "Calvinist" is not the term that the churches of this tradition name themselves, they use the term "reformed" (e.g. Reformed Church of France, Reformed Church in Hungary, Reformed Church in America etc.) or they identify by their reformed subgroup (e.g. Presbyterian, Congregationalist). See :Category:Reformed denominations by continent.
* "Calvinism" is too often used in reference to the theology, especially the five points. This is a narrower topic than the branch of the Christian tradition. I would even say "calvinism" usually has the five points in view.
** One previous opponent to the move notes use in Britannica, Oxford Bibliographies and The Canadian Encyclopedia, but these sources discuss "theology" and "ideas", not the "major branch" in view by this article. That definition better fits the article Theology of John Calvin.
* "Calvinism" is strictly speaking misleading and anachronistic given the scope of this article. Zwingli, Bucer and others were part of this identifiable movement prior to Calvin's involvement. The Zwinglian tradition arguably stands opposed to the Calvinist tradition, yet under the same reformed umbrella. This is the general usage preferred in historical theology when discussing their competing views of the sacrament.
The bulk of the opposition in prior discussion seems to be focused on the fact that "calvinism" is the more common word in English, but I fail to see how that is relevant. NGram doesn't tell you how the term is being used, just that it is.
Options:
* Simple: Retitle (move) the article and flip the opening sentence
** Reformed Christianity, also called Calvinism, is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and various other Reformation-era theologians.
* Complex: Refocus this article on calvinist theology (also not striclty synonymous with reformed theology). Begin a new article devoted to the "major branch of protestantism" titled Reformed Christianity.
Dirkwillems (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reformed Christianity" the better title, "Calvinism" a nuanced alternative
Talk:Hypothetical types of biochemistry

message: is defined as the loss of water vapour from the aerial parts of the parts,mainly through the stomata of leaves. Jelmani (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transpiration  

message: in strand one,we studied the internal and external structure of leaves. However,the structure of the leaves of different species of plants are not all the same.Leaves of one species may differ from those of another in respect of one or more of the following:
•their general shape and size
•the arrangement of leaves in relation to each other 
•the thickness of the cuticle 
•the number and position of stomata 
All the above structure differencesaffect the rate at which water vapour is lost by the plant by the process of transpiration. For example:
•The shapes and sizes of the leaves of some plants are altered so as to reduce the surface area exposed to the sun,thus reducing the transpiration rate e.g. in pinus,the leaves are needle-shaped.
•The leaves of some plants are situated close to each other so that they overlap and shade each other,ths reducing the transpiration rate.
•In some plants e.g. Nurium oleander,hairs occur on the leaves.This reduces air movement and also reflects the lightfalling on the leaves,thus reducing transpiration rate. 
•The cuticle of the leaves and  other aerial parts may be thickened to reduce water vapour loss through transpiration. 
•The number of stomata may be reduced to cut down water loss.In some plants e.g. Hąķęą and Pìņųş, the stomata  may be sunken so as to accumulate water vapour  molecules in sunken pockets, not exposed to direct sunlight. Jelmani (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between Water loss and Leaf Structure
Talk:Casimir II the Just

message: Where there are articles about this individual, here is how he is listed in English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries.  If you have access to a reference work that is not listed here, please feel free to add to the data. --Elonka 02:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias and dictionaries 

message: It appears that there was never consensus to move this page to Kazimierz II the Just, and it should be moved back to its English name of Casimir II of Poland.  Is there support for this move? --Elonka 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it is not a surprise.  But haven't we adequately proven elsewhere, that there was never community consensus for moving this article to a Polish name? --Elonka 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about a compriomise: Casimir II the Just? And no, we haven't... but let's not go off topic into that again, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Casimir II the Just for me; until we work out a general picture for the "of Poland" format. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus seems clear, so I went ahead and took care of the move.  Thanks!  --Elonka 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Wouldn't 'Casimir II the Just of Poland' or just 'Casimir II the Just' be better?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections, standarizing the few strange names for Polish monarchs I'd like to move it to Casimir II the Just (consider: the preceeding monarch is at Mieszko III the Old and following, at Leszek I the White).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name, revisited 

message: Failed for WPPOLAND due to insufficient density of inline citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review
Talk:Charles Evers

message: OK, I cut this text and move it here, because i want someone to repair it. It is biased and opinionated, provides very few details (birth year, etc). I'd love to see it fixed, but as it is, it doesn't pass as an encyclopedia article.
----
Biased text removed - unsubstantiated comments marked in red.:
Evers is nearly a lifelong resident of the deep South state of Mississippi,  whose racial mores are probably the most conservative in the nation, and whose lynchings and other violence toward Black people is notorious.
Evers has fearlessly spoken out against racism and racial violence all his life. But Evers has always seen the good in the White people of Mississippi. He has never wanted to live elsewhere.
 Over the next 5 years, he repeatedly risked his life to sign up thousands of new Black voters. 
He has also served as an informal advisor to a diverse collection of politicians,  many of whom have had little use for each other . These include Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan.
In 1997, Charles Evers published a memoir 'Have No Fear', written with assistance from Andrew Szanton.
----
The following was added to :Evers, Charles (which was redirected to this page) and needs to be integrated with the foregoing.
He has been an entrepreneur as well, and  -- unlike many in the civil rights movement -- a pioneer in linking Black political progress to Black economic progress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manning Bartlett  (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Some of the article sounds as if taken from a "puff piece" and none of it has citations. Need better sourcing and improving the tone.--Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone and sources

message: Judge Pickering is referred to as Evers' "fellow Republican". What evidence is there that Evers is a Republican, other than it being in the info box? It's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. 75.200.153.39 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Republican?
Talk:Copyleft

message: Can anyone explain or show me a external link explain what word plays in Copyleft? I don't use English as mother tongue and guess that is the double-meaning of "right" in Copyright, right? Anyway, Wikipedia should explain this in the article. Vinhtantran (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word play 

message: * Section on the various specific copyleft licenses.
* Link to a list of copyleft licenses
* Article on list of copyleft licenses
-Inowen (nlfte) 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing elements 

message: The classification of CC BY as a Permissive licence is clearly wrong (modern variants of the OGL would probably be a better example). While often presented as an "attribution only" licence this is not carried by the actual licence text nor by the intent of CC. In CC BY 4.0 the relevant terms are in 2(a)(5)(B), earlier versions contain terms that work in a similar manner. This restricts the form and terms on which "adapted material", that is derivatives of the original, can be distributed, so "copyleft" like restrictions. SimonPoole (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of CC BY 

message: I propose merging Design Science Licence into Copyleft. Design Science Licence is a very short article that overlaps with the coverage of the Design Science Licence in the CopyLeft article. Hmee2 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The supposed 'Main article' for Viral license (linked at the top of the 'Viral license' section) redirects back to this article. Littlecat456💬(here be shitty edits) 17:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Redirect 

message: I would like to assert that the history section of this article misattributes the origin of the copy left concept and name. It describes both as being conceived in the 1980s, but the first use of the concept was in the 1960s in the Principia Discordia by Greg Hill and Kerry Thornley, albeit spelled differently and using a different symbol: the relevant page said "KOPYLEFT - ALL RITES REVERSED" and was accompanied with a circled K. That history IS included in the Wikipedia article for "All Rights Reversed", but not in this article as it should be. 2001:56A:FCD0:BE00:ADBB:2B9D:30EE:40E2 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing history  

message: — Assignment last updated by KAN2035117 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: IFS213-Hacking and Open Source Culture
Talk:Causes of sexual orientation

message: Much of the material on this page needed to be merged into the full discussion on the genetics and environment/choice pages.  I'm in the process of moving material into those articles from several places, so if you're looking for material deleted from this article to appear in one of those two, you might want to wait a few hours for me to finish.
This article was also getting rather clunky from repeated patching by different people, and some of the statements weren't really saying much, or were making controversial conclusions best handled by letting other articles discuss the situation in detail (like the stuff about religion).  So, instead of just cutting and moving, I re-wrote this article to be what I hope is a proper introduction to the topic. -- Beland 03:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total re-write 

message: As I was adding to the Environment and Genetics articles, I found myself thinking that if the Causes article needs to be split into subarticles, maybe this isn't the best breakdown.  The passages that discuss anatomical and psychological differences of indeterminate origin really don't belong entirely in either Environment or Genetics.  Perhaps it would be better to have a subarticle focusing on scientific research, broken into multiple articles based on the type of research, if necessary; and another subarticle on the choice debate (which is related to the nature/nurture controversy, but it's a particular angle that has more to do with morality and politics than any of the scientific stuff). -- Beland 06:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize sub-articles? 

message: Examining this article, I can't help but feel that most of the material is repeated in other articles. This page exists only as a link page to other articles on causes of sexual orientation and seeks to summarise these but does so poorly and incoherently. Either arguments and content common to both articles (environment and genetics) need to be merged here and this section cleared up, or this article should just become a link page, perhaps even a category? For example, the political controversy sections from both could be moved here. Alternatively, is there an argument for deleting this page altogether? Thoughts? --Axon 12:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think my earlier suggestion to merge this page with Sexual orientation was a good idea.  This page could be converted into a coherent section there, more or less. -- Beland 14:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with this page?
Talk:Cosmic microwave background

message: The article has roughly the same material in different places. Needs to be cleaned up. Thus my reorganization and deletion edits. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant, repetitious material that repeats in different places.  

message: The section "Importance of precise measurement" does not have a single reference to back the section-title claim. It's basically a random section.
The article needs to start with an overview. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I distributed the sourced content of this section into other parts of the article. Now we start with "Features" which can focus on what the CMB is, not what it means for cosmology theories. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of precise measurement 

message: I have reorganized much of the article. The remaining glaring problem occurs at the end of the History. The next section "Microwave background observations" is post-COBE history but has only one ref. I put that section under History as "Observations after COBE" but the content is just a mess.
The Multipole analysis section is perhaps too long and it appears to be just dumped in.
The Timeline section would make more sense following the History. (or not at all for that matter). Johnjbarton (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents issues 

message: @Em3rgent0rdr Thanks for your edits on the page. But I don't understand the change you made to the figure caption. The original text was
* and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the blackbody spectrum for 2.725K.
Now it reads 
* so it can't be distinguished from another 2.725 K blackbody spectrum.
But there is only one 2.725 blackbody spectrum, it's unique. There is no "another".  I believe the original text is correct and summarizes the references. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I've reverted that back to the original wording. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  so it can't be distinguished from another 2.725 K blackbody spectrum.
Talk:Cyril

message: is Cyril a guy's name only?? or can it be a girl's name too?? hanabi-sama 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  girl's name?? 

message: The "ĭ" (i with breve diacritic) symbol in the pronunciation is not listed in Help:IPA, Help:IPA/English, nor English_orthography#Sound-to-spelling_correspondences. Is the pronunciation consistent with Wikipedia's IPA, or does it come from another orthography? Is the pronunciation SEE-rul or SIGH-rul, or are both common? -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This is the name vich is the anagrame of misioners balkanik ILIRIK =KIRILI and METODI = IDOTEM vich mean "Ilirik Misioners" and they weren't 2 man, but more of them. ARSCOMPA (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirili et metodi
Talk:Christian mythology

message: At some point, the article Abrahamic Mythology was deleted and redirected to "Abrahamic religions", which covers an entirely different topic than the prior article did -- the "unofficial" folk myths that sprung up *around* Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, such as the story of the Golem, the Lesser Key of Solomon, or 1001 nights. This article talks about the Christian facet of that to some degree, but mostly seems to talk about the mythological flavor of canonical Christian beliefs and doctrine. Islamic mythology and Jewish mythology also seem to mostly focus on the mythological flavor of "official" beliefs, rather than what the old Abrahamic mythology article spoke about, although Jewish folklore does seem to at least exist.
Am I looking in the wrong places? Is there a better target (or targets) to point people toward to explain the concept of non-scriptural Abrahamic stories? (To be clear, I cannot WP:BOLD on this -- I'm working on a different site where we had been linking to the old wikipedia article to explain a concept outside of the scope of our coverage, and recently learned it had been removed due to someone raising a fuss at us calling characters like Barbatos mythological).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, the Abrahamic mythology page was  redirected back in 2009, basically because it was unsourced WP:OR. You might be interested in looking through some categories like Religion in popular culture and Religious folklore PepperBeast (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "Abrahamic Mythology" 

message: I edited the article, adding more detail and explanation of the religion, as this article seems to focus alot on calling it a myth rather than going into detail about Christianity. The edit was reverted though, bc of “POV and original research.” Research is fine on an article, but considering this is Wikipedia, you can’t make a biased article centered around perspective. Sbtoast (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The text you added was just generic text about Christianity, not addressing the topic of the article. It was mostly unsourced personal opinion with no citations. Most importantly, the first few paragraphs of an article are supposed to summarise the rest of the article; they shouldn't be an essay on a different topic. "Considering this is Wikipedia" is a good idea: learn about the type of writing required for Wikipedia (using the links that have been posted on your Talk page) and consider that whenever making an edit. Wikipedia isn't for repeatedly publishing your own personal essay on a topic; there are lots of places around the Internet for that. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited with more detail
Talk:Company (disambiguation)

message: I a disambiguating this page, and just so everyone know's what I'm doing, here's my criteria for how I am determining what to link to:
#If it's clearly a corporation I am linking to corporation.
#If the text is ambiguous about what type of company it is I am linking to types of companies. 
#If the article is using the generic meaning of company (eg. Some companies do business in many countries.) then I will link to types of companies.
Kevin Rector 13:41, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
::I have changed the redirect for "Company" back to "Company (law)" and put a link to the disambiguation page at the top of "Company (law)".  That is how it was previously and I think that is the sensible approach.  Wikipedia doesn't keep stats, but it seems to me highly likely that 99% of the hits for company will be for the legal entity as opposed to the military term or a number of obscure films or books.  Happy to hear other points of view, but that seems to me to be the most sensible approach. I appreciate that Americans and Canadians refer to companies as corporations, but I still think that if you just aggregate the Brits, the Ozzies, the Kiwis and other Commonwealth countries, the business entity is going to be by far the bulk of the hits as opposed to the other options on the disambiguation page. Legis 08:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguating this page

message: "The company" was also used by Joseph Conrad in the Heart of Darkness to refer to the greed of European colonisers in Africa.  Starfish9 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other obscure uses of company

message: A disambiguation page is not a thesaurus entry, with pointers to articles that might be vaguely related to the term in question.  It is essentially a list of articles that could conceivably have that term as their title, if Wikipedia didn't require unique titles.  Accordingly, I have deleted all the vaguely related items, such as interpersonal relationship and concubine.  Additionally, if there is a primary term, as is the case with company, it should be in the first line, before the list of subsidiary entries—I have fixed this as well.  I've made some other minor changes to bring this page more in line with the Guidelines and Manual of Style.  These both provide a great explanation of the purpose of disambiguation pages—anyone editing a DAB should read them.  —johndburger 00:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DABs are not collections of vaguely related articles 

message: Huge fan!      My user name of roblox:Alpetannelanne820 2A02:8108:8080:3534:3CD3:546B:317D:CFBA (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wann all pets and rare Things in adopt me pls trank you
Talk:Cobalt

message: Is the image of cobalt metal included in this article really cobalt?  I looked online for more images of Cobalt metal and all the other pictures I have seen look much more silvery and much less golden.
Addition: The image is the same as on the Iron page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.247.101 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The images for iron and cobalt are not the same image. They were uploaded by  who has uploaded many excellent images of elements, many of which have been assessed as the best quality images on commons. I'm certain the image is indeed cobalt. Polyamorph (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is right. Iron chis are iron chips and cobalt chips are cobalt chips. Take an exact look on a calibrate monitor, so you can see the difference: cobalt is redish and iron more silvery. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of cobalt metal 

message: In Victoria (Australia), two firefighters have been permanently disabled as a result of heavy metal poisoning when they absorbed cobalt compounds from a lithium battery fire. Unfortunately, I have no further details, which is why I havent added this to the main article. 2001:8003:E490:7D01:70EE:4AFD:8B72:B12F (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cobalt Poisining of firefighters due to a lithium battery fire