lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ceramic

message: Does anyone know why the Venus of Willendorf is shown here? This is made of carved limestone, and is not ceramic. Better would be for it to be replaced with the Venus of Dolni Vestonice, which is ceramic. User name for this site (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. But, as with all the other edits you are making around the place, please use references. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus figure 

message: In the opening sentence, ceramics are described as being "made by shaping and then firing an inorganic, nonmetallic material", but then later, some metallic ceramics are mentioned. Also, some of the advanced ceramics which are mentioned later in the article are not made by shaping and firing the material. In the source for the opening sentence, it says this definition is "strictu sensu" (sic), so this seems too narrow a definition, considering the context of the source and the broader definition used both there and in the rest of this article. 82.3.113.43 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article doesn't really mention any metallic ceramics that I can tell. Many ceramics are made from metal compounds such as metal-oxides, nitrides, or carbides, but the fact that they contain metals does not make them metallic, that is, they don't behave as metals. For example, aluminum oxide is the main compound found in rubies and sapphires, but are transparent, hard and brittle, and electrically insulating. The article does mention composite ceramics that contain metallic matrices, but that's really no different from a composite plastic that contains metallic reinforcing fibers that serve the same purpose as rebar in concrete. When most people think of ceramic they think of earthware made of clays, but they can be made of almost any non-organic, nonmetallic material. The main thing that separates it from, say, concrete or porcelain is all ceramics are made by sintering the material together without fully melting it, leaving it somewhat porous, whereas concrete is made by a chemical reaction and porcelain is fully melted during firing, turning it into a non-porous glass. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic definition
Talk:Pasta

message: I don't like the title photo.
* Too dark,
* too many kinds of dry pasta lumped together,
*  I was expecting to see a plateful of cooked pasta. 109.252.66.34 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 title photo. 

message: Shouldn't something be done to regulate additions to the See also section which are completely off-topic? Tteokbokki is a food consisting of rice cakes. The only link with pasta is that you eat it.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: Tteokbokki 

message: The Wikipedia article on Cascatelli pasta might be nice to mention in this main article, as it is a modern shape (2019) specifically designed to have certain performance characteristics. It could go in the Science section, for example. Mjtheisenusa (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2023 

message: Inmamaskitchen.org (original website, see https://web.archive.org/web/20120331135946/http://www.inmamaskitchen.com/FOOD_IS_ART/pasta/historypasta.html for archived website) may not be a source that is reliable (it doesnt seem to have any sources itself), if possible someone should find a different source for this information if at all possible (Maybe citation needed may be better?) Rocksok (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 22 seems unreliable 

message: I would like to add info about the longest "sfoglia" (fresh egg pasta) ever made but I cannot edit the page. Adry0104 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: in my opinion, it isn't necessary to add this record. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . This is a trivial record not worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Someone could easily build a machine that could produce a strand of pasta of unlimited length. Who cares? Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ok! Adry0104 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinness World Record
Talk:Bernard Baruch

message: I knew mr. Baruch in the 60's, my grandfather was John O'Neill and I was at his 92nd birthday as a child. I used to visit him, with my grandfather many times and his
nurse Elizabeth Navarro. I  hope that his relatives know what a impact on my life he had. He cared so much for my father Raymond Kern, and as a young girl I knew what he did for America. 
    Just wanted his relatives to know he was amazing. I have the pictures so many years later. 2001:569:52B1:BD00:51E6:F79E:C9CE:3BA3 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Baruch
Talk:Calcium

message: The heading "Heat of vaporisation" is spelled "Heat of vaporization" on other Chemical Element Wikipedia entries, for example "Barium", and should be altered accordingly.
This heading appears in the data column on the right of the main text. 120.149.83.176 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because this article is written in en-GB not en-US. For more background, see WP:ENGVAR. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023 

message: Why would simple units conversion require citation? Aluminium's density is 2700 kg/m3 and its conductivity 37.7 MS/m (26.5 nΩ⋅m); for Calcium that's 1550 kg/m3 and 29.8 MS/m (33.6 nΩ⋅m) respectively. Conductivity by mass is therefore 14 kS/kg/m2 for Aluminium and 19.2 kS/kg/m2 for Calcium. For completeness sake, Copper figures are 8960 kg/m3, 59.6 MS/m (16.78 nΩ⋅m), 6.6 kS/kg/m2 (poor conductivity for a given weight of cable). 188.120.48.205 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for conductivity by mass 

message: According to the handbook of chemistry and physics 95th edition (CRC Press), face-centered cubic calcium turns into body-centered cubic above 443°C and not hexagonal as mentionned in the article. This is also written in this abstract (here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/1.2430364/meta) from 1956 (but for a temperature of 464°C). Fullmetalgrudo (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , I find other recent authoritative sources agree with your post and updated the article to state that it changes from fcc to bcc as you note. The source I used (Arblaster 2018) says that publications from 1956 and 1958 "reported an intermediate hexagonal close-packed (hP2) structure but Peterson and Fattore 1961 showed that this was due to hydrogen contamination." –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal structure
Talk:Grigory Barenblatt

message: Is this person in any way important? To me it just seems like a user biography - and it's an orphan, too. jheijmans
Atleast you get many hits on his name if you search scholar.google.com. I think he is important. user:avl
1800 Spruce Street says hello!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.139.42 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of the Bulge

message: Please explain why a reference to Hansard that verifies the statement, "The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill found it necessary in a speech to Parliament to explicitly state that the Battle of the Bulge was purely an American victory" is repeatedly turned back to "Citation needed".
Specifically the relevant part of the speech reads, "I have seen it suggested that the terrific battle which has been proceeding since 16th December on the American front is an Anglo-American battle. In fact, however, the United States troops have done almost all the fighting and have suffered almost all the losses... . Only one British Army Corps has been engaged in this action. All the rest of the 30 or more divisions, which have been fighting continuously for the last month, are United States troops."
If you want to, add the word "almost" between "was" and "purely".  But please do not suggest that the statement made is unjustified because it _is_. 87.115.242.178 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The lead section is six paragraphs long, where leads are supposed to consist of three or four paragraphs. An IP address (which was later blocked for adding unsourced content) took it upon themselves to add a lot of text to the lead without explanation a year and a half ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Bulge&diff=prev&oldid=1083478926). I think it would be to the great benefit of the article to restore the earlier, shorter lead, which was much better than what is now there. Hvng (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I would like to add a source for the “further reading section”. Doughterykyle (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 

message: If I'm not mistaken, I recall the fact that the 10th Armored Division played a major part of the BotB, yet the 10th Armored isn't even listed in the "Initial German Assault" section. I recall that a large part of them were already in Bastogne before even the 101st Airborne Division. If I am incorrect, please let me know. Thanks! Sergeantwade011 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th Armored Division? 

message: In the section 'German forces held up', there is a line which reads: "This created a bottleneck in the German advance. Kampfgruppe Peiper did not begin his advance until nearly 16:00". I believe it should instead read: "This created a bottleneck in the German advance. Kampfgruppe Peiper did not begin its advance until nearly 16:00". This is a minor grammatical correction. Megalonychidae (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Liu1126 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2024
Talk:Drummer

message: Why 'drummer', and not 'drumist' as per pretty much every other musical instumentalist? Even a person who generically plays precussion is a 'precussionist' and not a'precussioner'. So why the 'er' suffix on 'drummer'? 203.13.3.93 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology
Talk:JATO

message: I have seen a video on youtube.com, where a C-130 had JATO's strapped behind the cockpit in reversed direction (thrusting forward).
Now in this video the airplane blew up, but is this a used technique or was it just a test ?
:The video was probably of one of the tests carried out for Operation Credible Sport, a scheme to rescue the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis. As far as I can tell, the operation was always intended to be a one-off, and no-one is using 'reverse JATO' operationally. That said, a fairly standard - albeit often unofficial - short field landing technique involves putting the propellors into reverse pitch just before touch down. --Scott Wilson 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversed JATO

message: As far as I know, JATO is not "still used," as this article claims.  The last JATO bottles were manufactured during the Vietnam War, and by the very early 2000s, the last of them had deteriorated badly enough to make them dangerous.  As I remember, they were stored at Pensacola and had also suffered water damage.  The last operational use of JATO was by the Blue Angels' support C-130 in 2009.173.62.11.221 (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  JATO not "still used" 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:First JATO assisted Flight - GPN-2000-001538.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 28, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:First JATO assisted Flight - GPN-2000-001538.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: There is a link to this section, but it isn't here.  It seems the question related to Aerojet and their work for GALCIT and the early JATO in 1936. As the Aerojet article explains the work, I don't see why it is dubious. I will remove the link, but this discussion should allow one to discuss it here, or restore the link. Gah4 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious
Talk:If and only if

message: The sentence is:
  It does not, however, exclude the possibility that Madison 
  will refuse an apple if it is made available, in contrast 
  with (1) [...]
There is no (longer) "(1)".  It seems clear to me that "(1)" should be 
replaced by something like "the above statement".
130.79.11.24 (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  refers to (1), but there is no (1) 

message: According to MOS:SPECIFICLINK,one should not have two adjacent internal links like in the first sentence, which has the following:
> ..."if and only if" (shortened as "iff") is a biconditional logical connective between statements...
I'm not sure how I'd reformulate the sentence to separate the links, or which one would be more important to keep, but thought it was worth bringing up. Hansolo318 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad wikilinks in first sentence 

message: Is hysterical i cant 2A02:6680:210D:F20C:E03E:6B5F:5B9A:3450 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Madison apple example 

message: > The connective is biconditional (a statement of material equivalence), and can be likened to the standard material conditional ("only if", equal to "if ... then") combined with its reverse ("if"); hence the name.
I think "reverse" should be "converse" here. As far as I know only the terms "converse" and "inverse" are used in logic, because "reverse" is vague and can refer to either.  2001:630:E4:4220:1092:1F14:4423:828D (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "reverse" to "converse"
Talk:Slovenia

message: The clearest maps in thus article are one from the grim years of WWII and another of the climate zones with temperature charts included. The map of statistical regions is good but by design it lacks city names. I think it would improve the article to have a map showing major cities (especially Ljubljana) and showing enough of the neighboring nations to place it in Europe. I have seen such a map in the past, but cannot find it online now.
The map in the info box serves mainly to show it is a small nation. Reading that map, it pays to know that already, to find the dark green bit that is Slovenia. 
Overall, this is an excellent article on a nation with a thriving present and a long and fascinating past. - - Prairieplant (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better map?
Talk:Hanukkah rituals

message: An encyclopaedia probably should not incorporate the full text of religious rituals, beyond perhaps a few sentences. This isn't a manual for observant religious law. I suggest that a shorter version of this material be incorporated into the Chanukah entry, and this page deleted. However, if the Chanukah entry grows long, and needs to be broken into smaller sub-sections should sub-pages like this be made? What do others think? RK
:I agree that this should not necessarily be a full manual for observant religious law — although I don't see why this should be specifically avoided, as long as one does not exclude any legitimate religion or philosophy. (After all, Wikipedia is trying to become a global encyclopaedia...)  However, I disagree that this page is an example of that, and I do not personally find it constructive to "kill" a page with legitimate contents. However, I do think that Ma'oz tzur should be moved out to its own article. -- Olve 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Lists of atheists

message: Finding this list is flabbergasting! How about lists of christians by denomination or sect, a list of muslims by denomination or sect, etc.? This list really is making me question my ongoing financial support for Wikipedia. Ivan-Soto (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your question about Lists of Christians#By denomination? Or Lists of Muslims? Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the large religion section in Lists of people by belief. This list is far from anomalous. Not every article on Wikipedia needs to be of interest to every reader--even those that contribute money to the project. Nick Graves (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Ivan....What a strange complaint! -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this list without lists for other beliefs regarding deity? This list is weird concept. 

message: Is this some kind of death list that is being maintained by christian extremists?  I'm wondering at this point if the FBI needs to be made aware. American christians extremists, especially here in The Christian Republic of Texastan are all over the internet saying they have plans for a genocidal civil war in America, non-believers are leading their target list everywhere.  This makes the question relevant. 69.49.217.158 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: I just spent a few days researching all names listed. A significant number of people listed as Atheists were either never atheists or were so only at one point in their lives. Grasping for straws here. Shaw and Shelley both had their own brand of belief in a sort of Deity. It's as if anyone who rejects a jewish, muslim, or chistian god is called an atheist. Pathetic. 2601:155:8300:6B20:C1C0:8465:4FF0:F75 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several faux godless listed. 

message: The redirect List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:DDT

message: I recently added in the history section how the US Military promoted the production and usage of DDT due to its effectiveness and availability compared to pyrethrum (which mainly came from Japan during this time). It was both a way to protect the US and Allied soldiers during the war and for American influence to spread through spraying campaigns abroad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankers123 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military effects on DDT Production 

message: — Assignment last updated by Arbiddy (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

message: — Assignment last updated by Ully16 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life
Talk:Kyiv

message: Hi! in this sentence: "Scholars continue to debate when the city was founded: The traditional founding date is 482 CE, so the city celebrated its 1,500th anniversary in 1982. Archaeological data indicates a founding in the sixth or seventh centuries, with some researchers dating the founding as late as the late 9th century," there should definitely be a period at the end. Aiue (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 15:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Confirmed Edit Request Nov 9 

message: Replace 'also written as Kiev' with  'outdated place-name Kiev' in the title block: as it misleadingly enable a russian promoted writing to continue being used. If clarification is needed, i propose to add 'formerly' into the statement as to emphasize its outdated nature. 204.48.92.168 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality is that sources use Kiev, it is not misleading. See WP:KIEV for more. // Timothy :: talk  00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace 'also written as Kiev' with 'outdated place-name Kiev' in the title block: as it misleadingly enable a russian promoted writing to continue being used. Levenyatko (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neither Russian nor Ukrainian. It is the longstanding ENGLISH name that readers will still encounter. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: "Kyiv" spelling/pronunciation is the newspeak. It has not been used historically. 5.227.28.236 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2024 

message: The only correct spelling of the city name is KYIV, and never KIEV. Kyiv — is the Ukrainian language. Kiev — is the Russian language.
Please remove the Russian spelling from the description. We appreciate your understanding. 176.104.191.123 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: While Kyiv is the current official romanisation of the city's name, the alternative spelling Kiev has seen widespread usage in the past, hence a mention of this spelling would be useful to readers. Liu1126 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: "Kyiv — is the Ukrainian language." So you are suggesting that we should delete all mentions of it, and rename the article? Good idea. We do not care about terms in the Ukrainian language, only in the English language. Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Bullshit. Kiev is the long-standing English spelling. Kyiv has only been commonly used in English for less than a handful of years.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2024 

message: As per both the article and wiktionary, the folk etymology of Kyiv being named after Kyi is put too far into question, at least in my opinion, for the "named_for" section of the infobox to link to Kyi. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "named for: Kyi"