lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Iuz

message: Please place incomplete or badly formatted references here, and remove them from this section when completed.--Robbstrd 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete references

message: I don't know if this article is the best for merger. I would think Against the Giants would be more appropriate. Turlo Lomon 10:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care, I am just trying to get the ball rolling on the merge tagging that some members of the RPG project said they thought was a good idea. SolidPlaid 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To bring this discussion back to life.  I could work on the merger in a bit, say Thursday April 24, 2008. Iuz and his empire would work better as one article anyway. Web Warlock (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any need to continue discussing the merger.  The user who proposed it was a hardcore deletionist who got busted for sockpuppetry, which invalidates the proposal.McJeff (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: On the section that says
"Iuz was created by E. Gary Gygax.[citation needed]"
Really? Proof is required for this? Isnt that like saying "Mickey Mouse was created by Walt Disney.[citation needed]"? I seriously doubt any D+D player on earth, or anyone who has ever worked for any RPG company, would dispute that Gygax created Iuz.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.0.98 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed
Talk:Jeanne Eagels

message: I'm fairly sure the only posthumous Oscar nominees in acting categories were Jeanne Eagels, James Dean, Spencer Tracy, Peter Finch, Sir Ralph Richardson and Massimo Troisi, of whom the only winner was Peter Finch.
This would make Jeanne Eagels the only woman ever nominated posthumously for an acting Oscar.  Can anyone confirm this before I put it into the article?  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be true.  Many sites confirm there have been only 6 such nominations, and this lists them.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Posthumous Oscar nomination

message: 1900 and 1910 Censuses for Missouri give her birth year as 1891 and 1889. On the June 4,1900, the Census lists her a being 8 years old and turning 9 at the end of the month, but the enumerator botched her birth year up. It states that her birth name is "Eugenia" and not Amelia. It also states that she was born in Missouri.Go take a look at ancestry.com. Stutzey (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth/death and age of death do not match. 
Talk:Pholtus

message: I read that Pholtus (in the 3E dragon mag article) is Lawful Neutral, and does not tolerate those who harbor evil or chaotic intentions, in the least, and thus would not allow Lawful Evil clerics. 66.189.90.207 08:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment

message: I added this fact to the article, in the section on the song O Blinding Light: "This song comes from the Firesign Theatre album Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers."  My edit was reverted for not citing sources.  So I added the fact again, this time properly citing the album in question.  Again my edit was reverted, with the complaint that "the citation references itself".  So, what exactly would be an appropriate citation?  It's not like this is original research -- anybody who wants to can listen to the album and verify that this song is on there.  You wouldn't need to cite the fact that "Come Together" is on Abbey Road.  I'm confused! --74.14.37.124 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A Beatles' album approaches the threshold of common knowledge, and thus would not have to be cited. The Firesign Theatre is much more obscure, in terms of popular culture, and thus needs a source to verify what you are saying. Citing the album itself as the source is circular--the album is its own source. Simply find a source that says "the song 'O Blinding Light' comes from/is based on the Firesign Theatre album Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers". If you learned this fact yourself by listening to the album, that is original research. If you learned it from another source, cite the source you learned it from, and it's all good. Guinness323 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm just not seeing how this qualifies as original research.  I agree that my Beatles example wasn't a good one, so think of it this way instead.  Suppose an obscure book called X contains the passage "Blah blah blah".  If I want to mention in a Wikipedia article on a related subject that this passage appeared in this book, I don't need to cite an additional source that says "The passage 'blah blah blah' appeared in the book X" -- I can just cite the book itself, can I not?  Please correct me if this is not so.  But if this is so, then if I want to say that Don't Crush That Dwarf contains the passage "O blinding light, O light that blinds, I cannot see, look out for me", why can't I just cite the album? --74.14.37.124 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Complaints
Talk:Shake It (disambiguation)

message: This should be merged with China Girl (song) as it is its B-side, and doesn't currently warrant its own article. For the moment someone should merge the article, then place a redirect. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Wee Jas

message: Until From the Ashes, Wee Jas was a greater goddess. I've noted that in a section on status, and added external links that go into more detail. -Harmil 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rename this section something like "Wee Jas in previous editions," as the decision to drop her to to intermediate status seems to have been an out-of-setting one, as the intermediate power level did not exist in 1E. In fact, several lesser GH deities were raised & a few greater were lowered to fill out the ranks of intermediate deities. AFAIK, no in-game reason has ever been given for these changes. As for her status regarding Nerull & Boccob, the LGG states that she gained her death aspect only about 1000 years ago, when the Suel Empire was destroyed by the Rain of Colorless Fire. In fact, several GH deities have overlapping portfolios, just like in the real world. Regardless, we might want to start putting in a section called "Relationships" on all GH deity pages.--Robbstrd 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: Wee Jas is the next god to get a Core Beliefs article.  I wasn't sure if it was too early to list it as a resource, since this is still a few months from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.65.20 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: In the Player's Handbook, it specifies that neutral clerics of Wee Jas always rebuke undead, never turn them; the Dogma section seems to say otherwise.  I'm not really familiar with Greyhawk, so I'm not changing it, but can somebody verify which is correct?Alternator 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogma 

message: I think there should be something on here about the Ruby Knights- according to Tome of Battle, they're an order of crusaders that protect the temples. MorkaisChosen (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruby Knights
Talk:Queen of the Demonweb Pits

message: The whole motivation for the g1-g3 series, that being why the giants are raiding and what they are after, is completely ignored in the Q1 module.  There never is any answer to what the giants were after, why Lolth chose the giants, how she went about it, what was in it for the giants, what happened to those they conqered, etc.  If taken out of context, it's a great module, but in the context of the series, it is meaningless.  Even completing the module, there is no coverage of the effect destroying lolth has on the lands the giants sought to conquer.  no epilogue with the nobles who sent your party on the quest.   On its own, I love the module, but as part of the g/d series, it's incomplete.   Exactly why lolth would even give the party means to come to her world is beyond me.  For a ruler of a plane, she seems totally unaware of the party unless she actually has visual contact with them...she requires peepholes to watch the party in her own plane and her own ship?  That makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.214.140 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 May 2007
:Agreed - why don't you have a stab at incorporating this criticism into the text of the article?--Calabraxthis 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it doesn't come from a verifiable source? Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: :May want some of this later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the bit about DCS writing it and how that came about is from the preamble in the module itself. We've moved house and I am having trouble finding things unfortunately :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: The Demonweb Pits is a non-Euclidean dungeon in which corridors that should intersect do not, instead passing over or under one another. It is one of the first, if not the first published TSR adventure in which the dungeon itself is "tainted" by being very difficult to map for geometrical reasons. However, it is not, as some say, a Moebius strip dungeon. -- Roger E. Moore, user, former TSR employee, 11/16/2019. (sorry, cannot find out how to properly sign this)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger E. Moore (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the insight Roger E. Moore!  You can sign posts by using four ~ tildes. 2601:249:8A00:2500:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Euclidean nature of dungeon
Talk:Castle Greyhawk

message: In mid-october of 2008, Gygax Games Incorporated withdrew their lines from Troll Lord Games.  At this point, it is uncertain whether or not TLG will be publishing any more of Mr. Gygax's "Castle Zagyg" products.  The article should be updated to reflect this uncertainty.
http://trolldens.blogspot.com/2008/10/riding-line.html
Dutch206 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: "Troll Lord Games and Castle Zagyg" 
Talk:University District (Columbus, Ohio)

message: Is the official designation University Area? I've only ever heard it referred to as the University District.
Farva09 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The University Area is an administrative district of the City of Columbus and extends well beyond OSU's boundaries. There are already other articles that talk about "OSU Campus", this is simply a topic on the administrative district. Dhimelright 04:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name

message: I'm going to suggest that anyone who wants to talk about subjects arguably outside the context of this article - cite their sources. Someone really wants to talk about crime in the area, but wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Dhimelright 04:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations
Talk:Scarlet Brotherhood

message: Please place incomplete references here.--Robbstrd 02:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete references 

message: This article was apparently merged into Flanaess without notice. A copy of the article before it was merged can be found here. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent merge
Talk:Whitebeard Pirates

message: As you can see, there is a new layout in place on this page. Hope its okay with everyone else.  Its hard to work on this page because there isn't enough info to feed into it at the moment.  Angel Emfrbl 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Layout

message: Has anyone got a decent picture of Whitebeard's flag?  There was once one place onto this page however whoever did it didn't put a copywrite info on its page... It was deleted.  We need it back here.  I can't find a decent picture, the best I can get is Ace's back tattoo. ~Angel Emfrbl 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitebeard crews flag???

message: Just seeing how things go.  Its not too out of place here.  If its not likable it can be unmerged.  This isn't part of TTN's plan.  Its just a test to  see how one of the characters people want kept would go.  I want this left for 24 hours at least.  I have no plans nor interest to merge anyone else so don't worry about that.  I'm sitting on the merger discussion before making any other discissions like this one.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged Ace

message: 'Ace is currently imprisoned at Impel Down'
I probably just missed seeing that part but where does it say that? It's unreferenced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.91.63 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct of chapter 486.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impel Down 

message: Since I just remembered this, a few days ago I saw "Division leader zero" appear on this page.  Please do not submit fanfiction as there is no place for it on wikipedia.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fanfiction

message: Should current bounty be listed for known people? 68.228.143.3 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bounty
Talk:Robert S. Barton

message: Needs a rewrite to get it targeted on Bobn Barton and not on everyone that he isn't.  i.e. more on what he accomplished, not what the competition did.
:I have a folder of sourced information on his jobs, patents, awards, etc., but I'm one of his daughters and not usually a Wikipedia contributor, so I don't know what conflict of interest/bias policies are. -M 75.166.31.118 01:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this has been addressed. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Thread 
Talk:Geoff (Greyhawk)

message: I would prefer to see the heading for published material come at the top, as most of the early sub-sections are taken from canon published material. Thoughts?
:I moved it to the top, but put it under the "History" section to keep it in line w/ the formats of other GH nation articles.--Robbstrd 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization
Talk:Many Happy Returns (The Prisoner)

message: I didn't understand this episode. How come the village was deserted?
:It was all arranged to let The Prisoner escape from The Village and return home--albeit only temporarily--as a birthday gift! Note that the man who is piloting the plane when The Village is found and our hero is ejected back into captivity was the "milkman" (a "Village" substitute) rather than the British government employee he expected, and who therefore could have completely ignored the prepared flight plan, so who knows just where this island actually was?  Ted Watson 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much of a birthday gift - I think they were trying to drive it home to Number Six that escape from the Village is impossible even under the most favourable conditions - no active opposition, help from sympathetic former colleagues back home, etc. Some fans have pointed out that this episode marks a turning point in the series, after which Six pretty much gives up trying to escape and changes his focus to survival and trouble-making. IIRC that's pretty accurate. I also think the indications are that the milkman-pilot flew where Number Six intended to go - Six was a trained navigator with maps and instruments at his disposal, and a nice big canopy through which he could observe the entire flight. -Father Inire (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I removed a bit of text that said, roughly, that neither the location given for the Village in this episode nor the location given in "Chimes" is correct. However, the Village was probably located in both these places at different times in the series, just as it was later located up the road from London. At the very least, there certainly must have been a Village in the North Atlantic because Number Six navigated a jet all the way there. -Father Inire (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Village
Talk:Operation Brushwood

message: My grandfather staff sergeant church was there predawn on nov.8th.taking part in an amphibious landing.it would be wonderful to see any pictures of this or any of the operations of his battalion. 172.56.104.207 (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have pictures of 3rd i.d. involvement in operation brushwood?
Talk:General partnership

message: upto how many limited liabily partners can be addded to a company e.g can the LLP have 5 general partners and 50 limited partners who are investors, is there a number of partner restriction etc.
Did a lawyer write this article?  I'm leery of anything I read on Wikioedia as a matter of course (since anything can be written by anyone, who may or may not have any clue as to what they're talking about).  But I'd feel better about this article if I knew something about the credentials of the person that wrote it.
:It looks reasonably "legal", if a bit loose - I'll try and tweak some phrasing. But what on earth is an "unincorporated company"? Surely if it isn't incorporated, it isn't a company...? Art Markham 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

message: It is incorrect to say that Belgium does not allow a general partnership to acquire juristic personality. It does. Under the new code of companies and associations the general partnership (or maatschap/partenariat) is allowed to acquire juristic personality but the partners remain entirely liable for the debts of the partnership. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium
Talk:Ottoman–Egyptian invasion of Mani

message: In my view this article passes the seven criteria for a good article, i.e. it is well-written, factually accurate, broad, neutrally written, stable, well-referenced, and has a sufficient number of images. Maybe the only problem is with the grammair, a native speaker should check it, as there seem to be some orthography errors, and some typos. Also, I'm not sure the "fortifications of vergas" note should remain, probably it would be better to part put its content in the main article and part it could be used for an article yet to be created on Vergas. Ciao,--Aldux 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC review

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made several minor corrections, but there were no major problems with the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 03:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Hi. I'm new to all this, but I've spotted a problem in the fact box (right terminology?). Under the sections on strengths and casualties, it appears that the Maniots were fighting themselves instead of the Ottomans and Egyptians. Happy Editing!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbeas5 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact box
Talk:Battle of Mojkovac

message: Happaned some time ago, who knows why?
I noticed and changed (reverted) only the numbers of casualities. By the way no source for these casualities, although an important aspect of a battle.
I found some data on Montenegrin losses here: Srdja Pavlovic (2008) Balkan Anschluss, under title "The Capitulation of Montenegro" – Notes 46/48: "40,000 Montenegrin soldiers..." and "the Kolašin Brigade suffered 400 dead and wounded, and according to report no. 889, other units suffered some 200 dead and wounded. Our army kept its positions" (=cca.600, although not fully related to this battle) and on general losses here: R. DiNardo (2015) Invasion The Conquest of Serbia, 1915, chapter 8 (for further study of the war in the Balkan frontier).
I could not find numbers on Austrian losses, though... In German article there are some (to me) untraceable German-language sources. In the Serbian article: Gažević, Vojna enciklopedija 1974 looks as valid source.–Jozefsu (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism, through mobile editing
Talk:Battle of Martqopi

message: Insert non-formatted text here
it is written "was a 1625 military confrontation between Georgia and Iran". If yo read the original Georgian and Persian sources you will see that it was more sphisticated than that. It had a lot to do with power-hunger and intrigues withingn the Safavid empire and not only between Giorgi Saakadze and other Georgian (rivals), but also (other) Safavid notables. Babakexorramdin 00:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  simplistic 

message: It does not state anywhere in the article that Shah Abbas is commanding this battle, instead it says Qarciha Khan but in the template box it says Shah Abbas. The article makes no mention of Shah Abbas and none of the sources I have found mention Shah Abbas, furthermore neither does the Georgian variant of this article. Here is a source http://rustaveli.tripod.com/battles.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander: Not Shah Abbas