lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lir

message: WTF is this????:
:"According to Battltek mythology Lir was a soldier from the 31st Century who later was reincarnated as the famed Irish God. He was the son of the great periphery merchant, Zagros Pynnor. His twin sister was the noted Quintisha Pynnor. Hauptmann Lirath Quincy Pynnor was killed in action on March 13, 3034 during a routine dropship door malfunction on the FCS Saul Roberts. 
:On June 27, 3030, LirQ awarded the Federated Commonwealth Medal of Honor (FCMH). At this time he was a cadet from the Free Worlds League (FWL) and participating in an exchange program with the New Avalan Military Academy (NAMA). He was cited for bravery following a desperate solo attack, on an assault company of Kuritan regulars, while piloting a COM-2D Light Strike Meka. Following the 2nd Battle of the SawMill at Trikond, Lirath was given a position as a Leutnant in the 10th Skye. 
:Following his dismal demise, Lir was then reincarnated as the Irish God of the same name. 
Is this some SciFi-Vandalism? Is it from some SciFi or RPG or something? If its not purely invented, state clearly "In the BLAH-BLAH Role Playing Game, Lir is..." or "In the novel BLAH-BLAH by BLAH-BLAH-BLAH, Lir is..."
maybe it's from Battltek?
so i can lik leave messages to the futur? sweeeeet... Remember, people, the critical crisis in 21st Century America was one of capitalist imperialism. That should help you to understand much of what was going on.Lir 23:27 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
:Well, try to keep it on topic. This page is for discussing improvements to the Lir article. --Ed Poor
 
Oh, thats what I thought. I deleted it so that if anything important was ever written here it would be readily visible. Lir 23:52 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)
:because if you hadn't deleted it, it would be invisible? Well, I have only been active for a year or so, but it seems to me that only when a page gets seriously cluttered is it cleaned by archiving old talk -- not by deleting it. Slrubenstein
While the Irish Lir and the Welsh Llyr have some things in common, I'm not sure they are truly the same.  My knowledge of Irish myths isn't terribly strong, so I don't feel extremely confident to tackle Lir, but I could probably do some damage to a separate Llyr article.  I will check some good books for citations regarding any Pan-Celtictudeness that might exist between Lir and Llyr. Straif 20:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Actually that's not a browser problem (mostly), it's mostly down to OS. It has little support pre Windows 8 and on Mac seems to display on most systems, Linux distros aren't a problem at all. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tironian ⁊
Talk:REO Motor Car Company

message: It mentions REO Speedwagon but no mention of Diamond Rio, which was a play from the Diamond REO truck spin off. Perhaps you can work that in to the article? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Trekphiler (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On many wiki pages about actual events/items/people/etc., there is often a spot for something like 'references in popular culture'.  Having these things mentioned in an article when someone is looking for strictly 'facts' is not really a problem.  Nothing saying you have to read/use ALL of the information in said article.  32.212.102.239 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: In this shot the grill and name are not clear. There is also a head on shot of this same truck where REO is clearly visible, but it's a bad shot.
I believe this is post WWII because of the cab, but can't ref it. Truck appears "hot-rodded", front axle has modern, oversize wheels/tires, rear may, also. Sammy D III (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green dump truck in gallery 

message: I've heard old car buffs say: "ReeOhh",  yet been  chastised for not saying it alphabetically, like the band (Arhh--Eee--Ohhh). Yet the marque does not seem to be  initialized. Which is right?
Also wasn't REO, like G/M and Cadillac, one of the first to get an electric starter, in 1913?174.18.28.66 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the timing of the electric starter, but I believe pronouncing it as one word, even then, was the accepted version.  The band did take their name from the vehicle, but since they are known to pronounce each letter, that would be acceptable in that case.  IMO anyway.  32.212.102.239 (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: "REO Speed Wagon", separate words unless you're a band. No mention of the "REO Speed Delivery" in the article. Clearly visible on the bonnet/hood flank in this image:  https://viewer.slv.vic.gov.au/?entity=IE1442581&mode=browse (Out of copyright) Seasalt (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Should they really list every single version or variant of everything this company manufactured during their time in existence?  If so, feel free to do the research and add those vehicles.  32.212.102.239 (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Models
Talk:Johann Strauss I

message: This article could be improved translating information from the corresponding article in Japanese Wikipedia. See Help:Translation for more info Gor1995 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality article
Talk:Clemens Brentano

message: Responding to the anti-semitism question of T. Anthony, I am interested in the source of your comment, since I need to understand better his(Brentano's) translations of the visions of Sister Emmerich. Those and the film creation which they engendered have been a source of tension within the Judeo-Christian community. In my studies regarding the Jewish Legal system of Halacha I have come to see the Pharisees in a totally different light, one which is in stark contrast to that shown in Gibson's "Passion". I intend to write on this very subject, so I would be interested in your input.
            Neil E. Downey,
:The source? Let me see I think I read it somewhere, but I don't remember where. On page 12 of that document it says he had a strong belief in the German Volk. Several sources indicate he embellished on Emmerich's vision. Although they kind of indicate he may have hyped up Anti-Semitism more to give it extra drama then anything. If you add in extra horrors and villainy it's a cheap way to generate energy. 
:On another issue I admit I don't have a good view of the first century Pharisees, but in part that's because most every group in the first century AD strikes me as cruel by our standards.--T. Anthony 12:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti Semitism 
Talk:Adam

message: There is no section in the Bible that states Adam or Eve are the first humans, in fact, there's parts in the Bible where it implies there's other humans who are not the Children of Adam and Eve. See the Curse of Cain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.215.87.171 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We aim to summarise what reliable sources say about any subject. There appears to be a citation to an appropriate academic source supporting the assertion about Adam being the name given to the first human. I'm no expert in the subject area, but if you want to challenge what the article says you are going to have to bring reliable secondary sources discussing the subject that disagree with that assertion. Note that in this case, the Bible is a primary source - we don't interpret it ourselves, we look to what scholars say about it. So, please cite the sources that support your position. Girth Summit (blether) 19:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Books, esp most recent, by John Walton, Prof OT Emeritus, Wheaton college. DR-Martureo (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve. DR-Martureo (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Adam was the first person created. Satan and the fallen angels used a small puddle of Eve's menstruation blood to turn the evil Cain to flesh and blood and entered him in Eve's womb. Adam is not the father of Cain, or Cain's twin sister. They both had blonde hair. Abel was also the twin brother to his twin sister. Seth didn't have a twin. 2603:6011:601:1D00:9436:D710:9D07:B55C (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Please tell me you made this up for funsies? Blitterbug 05:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam isn't the first human 

message: I don’t see this corroborated in the body of the article or in relevant literature. Am I missing something? IncandescentBliss (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I added this descriptor to encompass as many ideas surrounding Adam as possible. For example, some theologicans proposed the idea of Pre-Adamite. It should not be understood to be exclusive or implying that there is a common belief about humans unaware of God preceeding Adam. If you think it is distracting, I would be fine with this descriptor being removed as per MOS:LEAD. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: On a second look, the Druze are mentioned, who speak about Adam as " the first spokesman (natiq), who helped to transmit the foundational teachings of monotheism (tawhid) intended for a larger audience" VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “first human-being aware of God” 

message: The infobox says he was born on Day 6, 1 AM, but he was not born; he was directly created. Should the infobox be changed to say "Created" and "Died" instead of "Born" and "Died"? Luke10.27 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam was not born
Talk:Ferdinand III, Grand Duke of Tuscany

message: His Imperial and Royal Highness Ferdinando III Giuseppe Giovanni Baptista Grand Duke of Tuscany, Archduke of Austria, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia
"Her Highness Maria Ferdinande Amalia Xaveria Theresia Josepha Anna Nepomucena Aloysia Johanna Vincentia Ignatia Dominica Franziska de Paula Franziska de Chantal, Duchess of Saxony"
Moved here since they clutter up the article. Olessi 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended titles 

message: .. Maria Ferdinand (1796-1865) and Maria Anna (1799-1834) were sisters ? 
One of them married the father Leopold II. and the other the son Ferdinand III. 
--AndreaMimi (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you know that .. 

message: Shouldn't he be an Imperial Highness from 1804 onwards? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and styles
Talk:List of guerrilla movements

message: How are we defining the difference between guerrilla movements and terrorists. In ordder to do this in a NPOV way we need an article defining guerrilla movements in the same waay as there is an article defining terrorism. --JK the unwise 11:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  guerrilla movements definition 

message: what about historical guerilla movements? should it be included here or in a seperate article? Idleguy 11:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this only about current guerilla movements? 

message: Black Lives Matter is NOT a guerrilla organization, even considering the "value neutral" intention of the team. It is not organized as an Army as the FMLN, FSLN, ORPA, etc. are or were. It is more of a defuse movement of diverse efforts to address excess police use of force toward African Americans, and the range of social realities that people see as contributing toward that. As the women's movement was directed at changing the treatment of women broadly in society, through diverse strategies and using diverse analyses.  Black Lives Matter should not be included on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrkik440 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLM is not a guerrilla organization 
Talk:1653

message: In the article about Samuel Scheidt it is written that his death date was March 24, 1654 and not at 1653. Does someone has other references to his death date? Thanks, WhatWasDone (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He died in 1654 on Good Friday; it's well documented.  (See the www.groveonline article, for example.)  I fixed it.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Samuel Scheidt]]

message: Pachelbel's article says that he was baptized on September 1, 1653, and that his actual date of birth may have been before September 1, though of course September 1 is still possibly correct. This also may have caused Pachelbel to be listed as both born on September 1 and "date unknown". Should this uncertainty be noted in a different way?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E9C9:8F00:542:7ECF:B613:C5D3 (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johann Pachelbel's birthdate
Talk:Sponge iron

message: I believe that this should be merged with the article about direct reduced iron. According to this (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/direct-reduced-iron-DRI.html) website, both are the same. --Joost.vp (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: merger proposal

message: Is there any difference between Sponge Iron and Iron Bloom, as in Bloomery- If not, then perhaps Bloomery article should be edited, then Sponge Iron should redirect there, as most of this article seems to reproduce what is either there or in other Iron articles. IceDragon64 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect?
Talk:Uluru

message: As the official gazetted name of the site is Uluru / Ayers Rock, I believe the title of this article should be changed to reflect this and to bring it up to article standards.
:It should be changed to "Uluru (formerly known as Ayers Rock by the invaders)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.26.145 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: (Smiles at the sarcasm in the above reply, then regains composure). Per WP:COMMONNAME, as it is usually only referred to as "Uluru" nowadays, that is the correct name for the article. The "official" name has no actual bearing on the article title. Turkey is officially "Republic of Türkiye", but that isn't where the article is. Nor is Australia at "Commonwealth of Australia". The official name is taken into account, and should always be mentioned in the article, along with any historical names, but really has no bearing on the title of the article. (Also per WP:COMMONNAME, and maybe some other policies too, "Uluru (formerly known as Ayers Rock by the invaders)" probably isn't quite suitable either). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change to Uluru / Ayers Rock 

message: Suggest replacing “Uluru” with “Uluṟu” throughout. 
This is inline with conventions for writing Aṉangu in the English/Roman alphabet (per Anangu Culture page on the National Parks’ website. https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/discover/culture/language/) 49.183.117.39 (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How do I type "Uluṟu"? Serious question. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and most can't or won't type "Uluṟu" the way you request. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2023 - suggest changing Uluru to Uluṟu  

message: The citation for "Uluru from All Angles: The Modern Controversy of Climbing the Sacred" by Lucy Gamble is dead but has an archived copy available; I chose the last Internet Archive snapshot I could find. (Wordpress says "This site has been archived or suspended.", and it must be suspended, as site:sites.coloradocollege.edu Uluru turns up nothing.)
Consider changing:

to:
 73.37.211.177 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024
Talk:Antonín Dvořák

message: I daresay this is getting close to being considered for nomination as a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: This information was removed from the article: German composer Magdalene Schauss-Flake (1921-2008) composed Variationen ueber ein Thema von Anton Dvork for trumpet and trombone. T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How would that be relevant for him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composer Magdalene Schauss-Flake Used Dvorak’s Theme
Talk:Mike Mentzer/Archive 1

message: The material in the paragraph preceding this section is an example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proper hoc. Just because something happens after an event does not mean that said event caused it. Nor for that matter does it mean that the quality of Arnold's physique can be ascribed to his training methods. 
Arnold like all champions of that physical elite had unique genetics, superior recovery ability, a top-notch metabolism, etc. and he took steroids to boot. With those factors in his favour, he could train far more than most people, recover far better than most people, etc. Furthermore, the bulk of Arnold's muscle was built with shorter routines as is the case with everyone so to ascribe what he did in the 1970's to being what he always did is a mistake of no small degree. 
So if one wants to argue against the training methodology of Mike Mentzer, they will have to do a hell of a lot better than stringing together a bunch of normative subjective assertions and considering that to constitute a viable argument. In the words of that great western philosopher Homey the Clown "Homey don't play that!!!" ShawnM 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all fine and dandy (especiallly if all of what your saying is true - which it's not), I'm sure you'll find many people who will argue Mentzers "theories" all day long. However Wikipedia is Nuetral Point of View (NPOV). Keep your edits as such and you'll have no problem with anyone, however if you attempt to turn this article into a "many people think Mentzer should have won this or that show" or other edits in a similar vein, without providing reputable sources, I will revert them.  Yankees76 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argumentation Fallacies Need Not Apply
Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 9

message: ::While I hold no particularly strong opinion one way or the other on polygamy, and wish "Jenny" all the best, I must confess that at the present time and for the foreseeable future, I do not have 2 wives.--Jimbo Wales 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An interesting quote

message: I have avoided all vestiges of the dispute on this page, relying on eventuality to result in a properly sourced and notable article; however, I just can't stand by while sourced and notable material is removed because the editor disagrees with the conclusions of the doctor of the day, "As for the child's death...I can't find a single thing linking exposure (the first entry under biology) to low temperatures and pneumonia." It doesn't matter what we think - it only matters what is in the source we are quoting. Carry on with your little war - but please don't removed sourced notable material (unless you are properly forking of course) Abeo Paliurus 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What matters is facts, and the fact is that pneumonia is not caused by exposure to cold. The source used is outdated and wrong, as is proven by advances in modern medicine. It is not me, but the entire modern medical community that disagrees with this diagnosis. Inaccurate and misleading material has no place in an encyclopedia. bcatt 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've disagreed with bcatt, so, like it or not, you're now a part of the "little war". ;) Wadsworth 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  What we have here is circumstantial evidence that the child's death is related to exposure to cold during this incident. I think the paragraph as it stands already shows that it's a circumstantial connection, and that the child could hypothetically have contracted an illness, or even been exposed to the cold again, during the weeks between this incident and the eventual death. Since it doesn't overstate the case, I think we should leave this bit as it is. Also, even viewing the incident through the eyes of modern medicine, it seems plausible that exposure (and the surrounding stress among family members following the incident) could have at least weakened the child's immune system, making him more susceptible to infection and disease.  Wesley 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It says "the child died from exposure", after stating that the exposure was caused by this incident. How exactly does that not mislead the reader? bcatt 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eldest son dying 

message: I did a little cleanup in this section. I think it was already pretty good. Hope it meets the approval of the other editors here. Wadsworth 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing section "1827 to 1831"
Talk:Splitting lemma

message: While the statement is correct in any abelian category, the given proof applies only to categories of abelian groups, modules over a ring, etc. This should be noted. (Perhaps it would be satisfactory to note that the general case follows by Freyd's embedding theorem).
:I noticed the same think. It seems that we could get it much more easily by the definition of biproduct. (which definition in http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/biproduct is more clear to me than the one in wikipedia)
::* Erm. I have a question as regards non-abelian groups. There is a natural inclusion u from quotient C to B=A⋊C, but what is the natural projection t from B=A⋊C to normal factor A, unless B is actually a direct product A×C ?? --192.75.48.150 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * [ Removed]. I'm confident enough in group theory to say something is not correct, or at least badly stated, but not confident enough in category theory to state the correct version. --192.75.48.150 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AKA Mitchell's embedding theorem the redlink above should be a redirect. 84.15.184.13 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof is not general

message: In the statement of the lemma: would it be helpful to clarify that by hypothesis, the maps q and r are in a short exact sequence, but that we don't require this a priori of t and u?
Jaswenso 03:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear hypothesis

message: Proof incomplete?
I thought it is not sufficient to prove that B\cong A\oplus C . Why do we then prove only this in the implication "1=>3"? Freeze S (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof incomplete