lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Allogenes

message: ... all our genes ... ist nonsense.
It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that Allogenes "Distinctly refers" to DNA or that the title (written in COPTIC, as was the entire thing) refers to 'all our genes'. I'm removing this because the only reference for it is a website that is quite frankly crazy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lacasse (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This stub is in itself hardly useful, and largely incorrect. There is no evidence that the Nag Hammadi text has any relation to Christianity, and the Codex Tchacos text is an independent work, though both are I feel best considered together as representatives of a cycle of ancient literature otherwise lost to us. I have written a new Wiki which I hope clarifies these issues and will install it shortly.Pinikadia 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement 
Talk:Altan Tobchi

message: Hi! First, the link to the Mongolian text of the Altan tobci doesn't seem to work. Second, I stumbled over some Khalkha version of the Altan tobci here:
http://www.asuult.net/ihtuuh/AT/chapter13.htm
It contains the following sentence:
Тєрийг бидний засъя гэж ирэмз за.
Does anybody of you have a facsimile of the Altan tobci or at least a version in Mongolian letters to find out how exactly this sentence was written in Mongolian letters? I would appreciate it. I don't have the Lu Altan tobci at home. The Qad-un ündüsün quriyanggui altan tobci has
törü-yi # bidan-u jasay-a gejü ire # jem [=irejem] je (74 verso: 08-10)
G Purevdorj (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:Alternate Realities (Cherryh)

message: In this article and the Cuckoo's Egg article it talks about Port Eternity and Voyager in the Night being part of the Age of Exploration trilogy, yet where does that leave Wave Without a Shore? Was WWaS chosen because Cuckoo's Egg was already a standalone novel? Also, is WWaS really in the Alliance-Union Universe, because who are the Ahnit? Where the heck is planet Freedom? It doesn't fit the A-U Universe.
It seems that there really should be an article titled Age of Exploration, where it explains that it consists of two short stories (Port Eternity & Voyager in the Night) and the novel Cuckoo's Egg. The two short stories take place within the A-U universe with Cuckoo's Egg being separate. It should also mention that Port Eternity and Voyager were published along with the non-AU short story WWaS as part of an omnibus titled Alternate Realities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.170 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Exploration - Trilogy?
Talk:Georgia's congressional districts

message: Is there a source of maps for the 1993-2003 and prior incarnations of these maps? A few months back I added the 2003-2007 maps to the individual districts' articles, but I can't seem to find any earlier maps. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous incarnations 

message: 2012 maps needed on this page. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2012

message: The maps currently used in the article are obsolete. Redistricting has significantly changed district boundaries. 38.101.255.137 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redistricting after the 2020 census
Talk:Heidi Lenhart

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: It's impossible that her father is Thomas Laughlin (Bobby Ocean). He was born in 1971, and Heidi was born in 1973. That would mean that her father was 2 years old when she was conceived. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE.
I verified his birthdate on IMDB.com, so the only satisfiable conclusion is that her father is, indeed, NOT Thomas Laughlin (Bobby Ocean). 
Someone ---PLEASE--- find out who her real father is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpaulusa (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  INCORRECT PATERNAL DATA
Talk:Seamus Zelazny Harper

message: Just redid the main bulk of the episode and links. Tidied it up and removed a lot of unnecessary information, aiming to give it a slightly more encyclopedic format. If you feel I removed or added something that I shouldn't have, feel free to edit it back in. AtlantisX 23:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes & Links 

message: Not sure if it's worth mentioning or not, but Seamus received a Commission some time after the establishment of the New Systems Commonwealth. His insignia is that of the solid red circle. (some believe this to be Lieutenant but there is no on screen evidence to support such as claim as far as I know).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad Zeak (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 
Talk:American Dream Factory

message: anyone know if the song steve sang, sunset boulevard was real or not?
Yes, it's real. http://www.allmusicvideocodes.com/s/scott_grimes/sunset.html --62.177.70.220 09:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not surprised that Steve did better than Roger in the talent contest. Did anyone see the response Roger got from his performance of "Jimmy Crack Corn". Not good. And he lied about the reception, too! - Ndrly 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger vs. Steve

message: The comments about the number of times Hayley has slept with a man and ages of Steve and Francine are clear examples of original research and have been removed as such.  Both comments synthesize information in the show to draw new conclusions.  They also use language like "t was also heavily implied" and "Steve must still be 14," a strong indication that this information is not directly pulled from any source, but based on the editors opinions.  If there are any objections to this please discuss. Sbacle 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research 

message: :Image:Cele-Bear-Tions.png SkierRMH (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cele-Bear-Tions.png
Talk:Trafalgar-class ironclad

message: Toddy1 just undid my edit here. Some of this is probably a matter of taste, but some of the restored version is simply wrong. In "They were the last class of low freeboard battleships built for the Royal Navy. They had favoured this design for several years because they felt that it reduced the size of the target that would be hit by gunfire in a battle and the smaller hull area allowed thicker armour" the "they" in the second sentence grammatically refers to the "they" in the first sentence, not to the Royal Navy (also note that "Royal Navy" is singular, while "they" is plural). Secondly, there is no guarantee that gunfire would hit anything in a battle, so the indicative mode is wrong, and the the subjunctive is required. However, I'll rephrase that, using the more idiomatic "presents a smaller target". Please discuss before reverting again. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed the missing "it" while editing the new version. No worries. I'm not quite clear about the "penultimate", though. Do you refer to the fact that Sans Pareil was commissioned after  Trafalgar? I'm not aware of any later low-freeboard design. If it does refer to Sans Pareil, why not make this explicit? E.g. "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships designed for the Royal Navy", or, if you want to give more information, "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships designed for the Royal Navy, although, due to slower construction, HMS Sans Pareil was the last ship of this type commissioned" ? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any later low-freeboard design - you have forgotten the Hood.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. So what about "The Trafalgars were the last class of low freeboard battleships designed for the Royal Navy, although the 1891 Hood was build to a low-freeboard variant of the Royal Sovereign-class"?  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets us into arguments about whether a class of one, is a class.  Please, let us not go there.  It is not fruitful.  I have modified the last paragraph of the introduction to make life clearer.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeboard, etc. 

message: Not sure if it's worthy of adding, or qualifies as reliable, but this site quotes the Admiralty's Parliamentary Secretary as saying Trafalgars would be "the last ironclads of this type that will ever be built by this or any other country."  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  08:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Trafalgar'' & the last sequel
Talk:Cumbria Scout County (The Scout Association)

message: I have consulted with another editor - outside of Scouting.  Assuming good faith, I'm afraid that I cannot see that these new sites fit in with Wikipedia as they appear effectively nothing more than a list of branches of The Scout Association.  For further information on this please see the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, notably the section on advertising.  Even when open to Groups of all Associations these pages were of suspect standard, and closing them to independent Groups has not helped in any way.  
I suggest returning them to their original format, a new format that allows all Scouting in a County to be reported, or, alternatively, deleted as inappropriate.  -- DiverScout (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Oh Yeah (Work)

message: Can we get a confirmation on the video premiere?--rocketrye12 talk/contribs 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please SIGN your posts and do NOT preface your statements with 'man.' Gee.  I want confirmation of the premiere DATE, sorry.  I should havae clarified.--rocketrye12 talk/contribs 06:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Trading Places International

message: This page was modeled after similar pages on RCI and Interval International, both also timeshare companies.  The information listed could be useful to anyone researching timeshares.  This page is certainly not an ad as there is no pricing or promotion info given.  (At least no more of an ad than the RCI or Interval articles)
:My concerns are both Notability and advertising... I think this article serves as little more than an attempt to advertise a company.  Philippe Beaudette 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is determined to be deleted, then the next move of the editor needs to be to delete both the RCI and Interval International articles, as they really all three provide the same type of info re: each respective company.  I believe, however, that someone interested in researching timeshares would find this article helpful as a starting point in research.  Regarding Notability, a quick search for Trading Places International on yahoo.com reveals thousands of independent reviews and discussions of TPI properties. Frog47 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tell you what, I'll remove the speedy and replace it with a prod.  That gives you some time to get some external links and some third party sources up. Philippe Beaudette 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:2007 Seattle Mariners season

message: does anyone think the wildcard standing should be added to this page as well, since they are in a tight race for the divison and the wildcard? Crd721 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wildcard standings 

message: I'm gonna try and update these after every series from now on, mmmk! --Nightfreak 11:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player stats 

message: Not a sufficient topic to merit a stand-alone article. Most draftees are not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of 2007 Seattle Mariners draft picks]]
Talk:James McMillan (fur trader)

message: Thought I'd leave it to others to rate this for WikiProject BC, as it's my first effort at an article which (I think) is more than a stub--Keefer4 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment
Talk:Transnistria/voting

message: Do you support the idea of having a subpage to help with ease of navigation and discussion by keeping the voting (and voting related discussion) separate from the general discussion?
*Support Mathmo Talk 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am not saying this will reduce or make inferior in anyway whatsoever the discussion. Rather I'm saying the opposite, that this will improve the discussion by having subpage for the voting. Keeps the discussion uncluttered up and improves the flow of it, which in the ends improves the quality of the discussion. Mathmo Talk 13:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The first subpage vote
Talk:Microalgae

message: I am not sure that "they are generally more efficient converters of solar energy because of their simple cellular structure" is true; this needs a source. More complex organisms have greater potential for regulation, and thus could potentially be more efficient.
In addition, cells living in water have less access to carbon dioxide, which is not particularly soluble in water. Pcu123456789 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus there is probably less CO2 in water than air. I don't think that the comparison with leafy plants, which require space, is valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pcu123456789 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Is displaying a picture of spirulina correct? I thought that spirulina is a cyanobacteria, not an algae.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.147.33.106 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Algae is not monophyletic, it includes basically anything that photosynthesizes and is not a plant. Nessie (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirulina: Algae or bacteria?

message: --ee1518 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the name Micro mean in this case? They are only visible with a Microscope?
Talk:Miyuki Kanbe

message: I changed Kanagawa to Kanagawa, Japan for those English- readers who are not familiar with Japanese prefectures. It could easily be mistaken for a company or a singing group otherwise. 
I won't edit war over it, if you delete my contribution again, but I wish you would discuss it further with me before doing so. Arigato! --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your concern, but that's why the blue links are there. Anyone who got as far as Miyuki Kanbe is certain at least to have a rudimentary knowledge of Japan. Nobody is going to mistake anything for a company or a singing group if they follow the blue links. If they don't/can't make it out from that, I'm guessing they really want MySpace or Twitter, have no idea that this is an encyclopedia, and got here by mistake anyway. It really is unnecessary, but I am glad you're here contributing, and looking out for those folks.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Place names says: For prefectures, use the form [[{prefecture-name} Prefecture]] without ken, fu, or to, (e.g., Tochigi Prefecture). Exception: Use Hokkaido without "Prefecture" as this is common usage. Elizium23 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, that's a rather silly concern. The article already says "Miyuki Kanbe ... was a Japanese model", which should make the country of birth pretty obvious. If she were Japanese-American, say, then it might be worth including the country, but here it's superfluous. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How silly of me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: oversimplification

message: I stumbled across this interview from 2005. Here it is in case anyone wants to trawl through it for useful info.
Here's a transcript of the original, in japanese: 
Here's an english translation: 
—Msmarmalade (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 interview
Talk:American College Dictionary

message: Why does the word "The" not show up in the title? It does in The Lord of the Rings. I didn't see much difference in the code. I tried removing the "italic title" code, but got the result in Preview of no "The"; and tried removing instead the "name" code, and got the same result. Misty MH (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A correction to the title
Talk:American Jurisprudence

message: There has been a third edition or Am. Jur. 3d since about 2010 - here's a link to where you can buy it https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Treatises/American-Jurisprudence-Proof-of-Facts-3d/p/100027553 If some kind person wants to verify this and add it to the article it may be helpful. 73.126.66.150 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say that Chris from Connecticut is apparently wrong. The link provided is to a related series, American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, not the main American Jurisprudence encyclopedia. Am Jur is apparently still in the second generation as American Jurisprudence 2d. See https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Legal-Encyclopedias/American-Jurisprudence-2d/p/100027544 and click on "SELECT VOLUMES" for most recent issues, April 2022 as of this writing. MrArtC (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third edition released around 2010
Talk:An Actor Prepares

message: I see that Kentes has augmented the publication history of An Actor Prepares, which is great. I'm finding the present version a little confusing, though. As far as I'm aware, the volumes were published in Russian in the way described (though the description isn't crystal clear). The two volumes are An Actor's Work on Himself, Parts One and Two (Rabota Aktiora nad Soboj) and An Actor's Work on a Role (Rabota Aktiora nad Rolju). The first volume (I think just part one) was published in 1938 in Russia, but I'm not sure about part two or the second volume. I'm taking my info from Jean Benedetti's Stanislavski and the Actor and Sharon Carnicke's Stanislavski in Focus. DionysosProteus 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Anacreon

message: Shouldn't there be a section to describe Anacreon's legacy? A school of poetry was founded on the style of his work during the Middle Ages, and a revival of Anacreontic ideals in the late 18th century led to the rise of Romanticism, I believe. It would be good to mention these things. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: Is the translated poem in the article one of those considered genuine, or (as I suspect) a translation form the spurious Anacreontea? If it is indeed the latter, then the section should be moved to the article on the Anacreontea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can tell (without access to my sources at the moment) the translated poem is still considered genuinely by Anacreon; it's PMG 417. Whether Headlam's very Victorian translation is a useful one to include in the article is another question entirely; I am always suspcious of this style of translation, though at least Headlam seems to have stuck reasonably accurately to Anacreon's text. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated poem
Talk:Athenian pederasty

message: This article is sloppy with sources. For the moment, I'll just refer to some assertions about Solon.
:1) laws regarding pederasty are wrongly attributed to Solon in the section 'Law'. This attribution is based on a very poor reading of the historic source, the speech by Aeschines. Read the source! Aeschines is talking about lawgivers in general. The context of the speech is clearly anachronistic. 
:2) Solon is asserted to be the founder of the pederastic tradition in Athens in the section 'History and Artistic Record'. What's the source for this? I suspect it's a case of Aeschines being misapplied yet again.
This nonsense has to be cleared up. Lucretius (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the sources

message: It appears that this page should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece 202.156.14.103 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've just tagged it. Let's see what shakes out. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur also.  I've opened a talk page section at Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece/Archive 2#Athenian pederasty merge proposal.  Comments are welcome.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the discussion was not merged. Removing tag from the article. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Mount Ida

message: I propose that this article on Mount Ida  be split into a two separate pages called Mount Ida, Crete and Mount Ida, Anatolia because although the two mountains do share the same name they are in two geographically different locations. 146.199.128.251 (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: Articles covering the two mountains already have separate articles: Mount Ida (Crete), and Mount Ida (Turkey). This article is about the shared mythology of the two mountains. Paul August ☎ 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose: You would logically expect a disambig here, but this is better than a disambig. Moreover, all the big classical dictionaries have articles that look about like this. To a classicist, if someone says "Mount Ida," you immediately want to know which one without a whole lot of searching. I suggest we not discard this better-than-disambig distinguishing article.Botteville (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal
Talk:An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror

message: This book has been highly criticized in the RS.  So much so in fact that one of the authors has found it necessary to write an entire article dedicated to its criticisms.  The wikipedia article is in effect promotional material for the book.  It includes a few token praise for the book (from a colleague of one of the authors with a clear conflict of interest, without even mentioning any of it) and it actually includes the author's rebuttal to their many critics, without actually including any criticism whatsoever.  I have put a POV tag for this reason. Poyani (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV
Talk:Cretan pederasty

message: According to Percy (p. 22), it's not clear at all that the Minoans established pederasty. There are conflicting theories as to the origin, and this article does a poor job at discussing them, and instead just embraces one of them. A more recent summary . Pcap ping 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minoan or not 

message: Although I'm in favor of presenting passages from primary sources, and don't think any of that should be deleted from the article, I'm concerned that the number of secondary sources is too limited to be balanced. In particular, the interpretation of the dedicatory statuary is presented as if it were uncontested; I have my doubts that all scholars take the same view of it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I remembered that I have a copy of Koehl's article  — “The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan Rite of Passage,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 106 (1986) — which I've just reviewed. It's a meticulous and sober piece of scholarship, and should be used more extensively to construct this article. He deals with Minoan origins, Cretan rites of passage, the Strabo passage on the erotic aspect, and how the Ganymede myth can be viewed as expressing the social custom. As well as offering an amusingly lengthy and illustrated treatment of Cretan hairstyles for men. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  interpretation of evidence 