lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Neon Horse

message: Um, is the Tooth and Nail site public domain?  Probably not. Douglas A. Whitfield 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I changed the genre to more accurately reflect what they sound like.  They definitely are not industrial rock and have a much more close to Indie Rock sound.
Midiboy 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Mark Salomon and Jason Martin are definite confirmations to being involved in this band:
http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=NEON%20HORSE&search_in=a&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1  
They have writing credits on all of the songs.
:Technically, this still doesn't mean they're band members, but it's a very strong indicator.  I think it's alright to mention the writing credits as such, and I've done so. Jpers36 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You spelled Salomon wrong twice. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two members confirmed
Talk:Obadiah

message: If the Rainbow Study Bible indeed says Jerusalem was destroyed by the Philistines during the monarchic period, it is not even wrong.  I have taken this out.
4.249.198.226 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rainbow study bible wrong 

message: In the article, it is stated that  "Abdil or Abdi" are Turkish names. This is not true. These two names or words are Arabic. There is no Turkish word or given name as "Abdil" or "Abdi."
The statement -which is at the beginning of the article- should be removed.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Abdil and Abdi 

message: Could there please be a statement (high up) on the page stating whether the subject of the article is a real or fictional person? 49.180.102.125 (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional?
Talk:Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

message: For simpler access, would it not make sense to redirect "Eugen von Bohm Bawerk" to this page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.93.238 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect Bohm Bawerk

message: It's not clear what "opposed" means in the infobox.  As best I can tell, it embodies the Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx's economics, which is a more nuanced topic than mere opposition, and covered over many paragraphs in the article body.  I've removed the item as it does not properly describe the relationship between Bohm-Bawerk and Marx. aprock (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, the opposed parameter in the infobox was deprecated.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "opposed" in the infobox 

message: Eugen Ritter von Böhm-Bawerk died in 1914.  Some inept pedants have moved this article to “Eugen Böhm von Bawerk” based on a theory that his name was changed in 1919. —172.58.17.67 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Post-Mortem'' Name-Change?!? and academic work?!?! 

message: As I recall, central to his positive theory are four causes of interest. They could be listed. One might also want to note his ideas about the period of production,
also in Jevons, and built on by Wicksell. Which Austrians though that theory was a sidetrack? Most contemporary economists also think it mistaken. But
Peter Lewin and Nicholas C. insist on retaining it, with a redefinition in terms of finance.216.171.191.62 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need More About His Theory Of Capital
Talk:Longest-lasting light bulbs

message: This is a very unsatisfactory article!  It has no discussion of, or links to info about, what makes bulbs last long (operating at lower voltage and having very stable conditions, not being turned on and off), and which types of bulbs last the longest (LED).-69.87.200.219 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So the third and fifth have burned out. Doesn't that mean they should no longer be third and fifth? Maybe a new section with bulbs that lasted a long time could be added. Brted (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Burned out?

message: "In terms of consistantly longest lasting light bulbs L.E.D.'s are the longest lasting bulbs (most last 60,000 or
100,000 hours), but are not 'True bulbs' in a sense that they are not made of glass"-JasonIqbal 00:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: In a theatre i Rijeka (Croatia) there is a working light bulb from 1885! It's the oldest working light bulb in the world  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.150.227.29 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rijeka's bulb 

message: Enough with the LED comments. We all know this is about incandescent bulbs, so lets rename it: List of long-lived incandescent light bulbs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: There is no mention of the world's oldest incandescent bulb being used at extremely low wattage for its design.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.44.153 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art. ignores reason for longevity 

message: In the news recently is a forgotten neon light at Clifton's Cafeteria, CA. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  clifton's cafeteria neon light 

message: The sixth longest lasting light bulb is a bulb installed on the ceiling of a cave in the Cave of the Winds in Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA it has been in use since 1904
* The section is completely unreferenced
* If it has been in use since 1904, it's older than the longest-lasting one in Livermore.
Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: Sixth longest-lasting light bulb

message: In the news today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-21467608 which is older than the Centennial Light
--TrogWoolley (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ediswan light bulb still glowing in Heysham after 130 years

message: This doesn seem like an encyclopedic tone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.128.50 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  While it might seem astonishing
Talk:Network emulation

message: It looks like all the external links in the article should be either removed to converted to internal links per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK.  There might be a couple that should be removed to an External links section. --Ronz 00:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links removed.  Didn't find any suitable for External links section. --Ronz 02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I needed to remove the tag and the links you added. --Ronz 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links in the article were very useful. Is there any problem with moving them to external links part? Dima373 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, such links are not included in articles per WP:NOT#LINK. --Ronz 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read WP:NOT#LINK very carefully, but... In this case the links can be vary valuable till articles about the products/companies listed will be created (like NS-2 article). Dima373 08:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm

message: I removed a "reference"  because it appeared to be more promotional than anything.  It doesn't meet WP:RS. --Ronz 17:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: What about software that is both Free and Commercial (e.g. you can buy it, including support, but it's open-source)?  Or software that's neither Free nor Commercial (e.g. freeware)?  (Or even, is there non-commercial hardware, perhaps nonprofits?  Well, maybe not.)  I might change the labels, but it's hard to find evidence that e.g. WANem isn't commercial or that LANforge-ICE is definitely non-Free.  But the labels definitely suggest a false dichotomy that should be remedied... Or maybe the lists just aren't encyclopedic enough to belong here (although on the other hand I would feel a loss if they were just deleted, since they're useful to many of the people who come to this article) —Isaac Dupree(talk) 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free software vs. Commercial software vs. Commercial hardware??
Talk:Mandible (arthropod mouthpart)

message: If Chelicerata get their own article, I think Mandibulata should as well to encompass the crustaceas, myripodas, and insectas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.128.125 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mandibulata subphylum 

message: This is in :Category:Arthropod anatomy, but what about a "mouth" related category, e.g. :Category:Mouth? Or is that just for humans and close-ish relatives? Richard001 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: It seems unusual to have a major taxon (Mandibulata) combined with an article about an anatomical feature (arthropod mandibles).  If we have enough information about mandibles to warrant its own article, I think we should separate the text about mandibulates into a separate article about that taxon, especially since Mandibulata has received new support from molecular phylogeny.  Does anyone object?
:The above was added by me at 16:53, 3 July 2010.  I forgot to sign it at the time - Cephal-odd (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles were separated. Yet the current one might be merged with mandible (insect). And the above discussion now belongs to the Mandibulata article. Mo5b (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Mandibulata and Mandible articles?
Talk:Maroc Soir Group

message: The article La Mañana (Morocco) has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
:A search for references could not find published (gBook) mention of this newspaper, fails WP:N and WP:V
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist.  The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[La Mañana (Morocco)]]
Template talk:List of places in Alabama

message: Stub templates should NEVER EVER be placed within other templates. Firstly, it creates server difficulties. Secondly it creates serious problems for stub sorting. Thirdly, it ends up with stub templates being used indiscriminately on any articles containing the template, whether they are stubs or not. Fourthly, it makes it a tougher task to find the initial page that needs editing if an incorrect stub template is placed (as happened here -  would have been far more appropriate than the redirect ). Fifthly - in this particular case - it is intended to apply to list articles, which are normally given  rather than a form of geo-stub anyway. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub template
Talk:Latin American social archaeology

message: This article is a work in progress about a teorethical current opf marxist inspiration within latin american archaelogy (which now is excerting some influence amongst some Spanish and American Archaeologists). It is a slow work since english is not my native tongue (i'm from Argentina), and in fact i'll be truly grateful to anyone who helps me by correcting my mistakes.
Since this current has a lot of production in some countries of south and central america, i think that it deserves its place within the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illapa (talk • contribs) 
:Sorry about that; with so many hoax and spam articles being created all the time, sometimes the wrong thing gets tagged for speedy deletion.  I've removed the tag.  Shouldn't it be called Latin American social archaeology, though? —Celithemis 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and do it, but for future reference, you can use the "move" tab at the top of the page. —Celithemis 04:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:WSGW-FM

message: Article had made an issue of station now being "out of state" owners.  That's a highly point of view reflecting the state of the author and is confusing to a reader.  It is also misleading, since the prior owner of the station (Wilkes Broadcasting) was located in Warwick, Rhode Island..  Also, the statement about the station sharing programming with WSGW-AM is no longer true (if it ever was factual).  The AM station carries Limbaugh, Hannity, Clark Howard and Coast to Coast - this station carries Mancow, Dennis Miller, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage.  The only program in common is Coast to Coast.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Baldwin Lake (Illinois)

message: Hi, I added a tag as this article could use some work to adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of style for tone and some of the content is outdated and needs the tense to be altered. Cheers, Uninspired Username (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite completed as per suggestion.  Bigturtle (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the improvements! Uninspired Username (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone tag
Talk:Luke Spencer

message: *Oppose Merge because this is a starting attempt at having different a different article for Luke. Before there was only the Luke and Laura article. Yes, it does copy a lot but most of Luke's story revolves around Laura. I think that as time moves on we can get a better article chronicling Luke's story alone.--Charleenmerced  Talk 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Luke & Laura pgs SHOULD be seperate!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.113.157 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no! 

message: I understand Luke and Laura had been married for a while, but they are divorced now, so should Nikolas be included as a stepson to Luke. Technically, he isn't even related to the man by marriage anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepson!? 

message: Question, if Luke and Tracy's May 22, 2005 marriage is invalid, wouldn't that make Luke and Laura's 2007 remarriage valid??? I see someone keeps editing that Luke and Tracy are married invalidly, I'm going to change it to make the marriage legal (based on what Luke said was a lie). But if it does come out that Luke and Tracy's marriage is not legal, I hope it addresses the validity of Luke and Laura's remarriage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.81.190 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage Validity 
Talk:Sex trade (Canada)

message: I think this should be improved and moved to Prostitution in Canada. Anyone think otherwise? -Oreo Priest 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of problems with this article. You'll find the early revision history of its content in the revision history of Sex trade. That article started out as a redirect to other articles, with various editors apparently disagreeing on the meaning of the term. The article was all about Canada, and the content was accordingly extracted and moved to a new page (the current). Considering the apparent disagreement on what exactly the term "sex trade" covers, it would be a good idea to move the article to a less ambiguous title. On the other hand, the current state of the article is unacceptable as an account of prostitution in Canada, so we could also nominate it for deletion. It is unencyclopedic in its current state. Alfons Åberg 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving article to [[Prostitution in Canada]]?

message: The article currently reads:
"Victimization through the sex trade is a result of many factors including: a global failure to adequately address the decriminalization and legalization of prostitution; the tacit classification of sex workers as second-class citizens by law-enforcement; illegal drugs; warfare; and violence against women."
Does this mean that women become victims of prostitution because of the factors mentioned, or does it mean that they are styled as victims because of those factors? In either case it's personal opinion and does not conform to WP:NPOV. And how about "to adequately address the decriminalization"? Does that mean to promote or to oppose decriminalization?
I'm removing this part for now. Alfons Åberg 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean?
Talk:Metolachlor

message: The balance of the whole article is upset by the fact that the safety section dwarfs the others. This is a relatively harmless chemical, couldn't some of this information be dropped; the two sub-sections state certain innocuous statements about the safety of the chemical and draw the conclusion that no harm will be done. This kind of information should not be in the article. The two sister articles, acetochlor and alachlor are much better balanced and I would like to see this article following that standard. Tom 10:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance of sections
Talk:Noisettes/Archive 1

message: In regard to Migospia's edits for a change of name. I have no idea on the "official" status of the name since both Noisettes and The Noisettes have been used interchangably since the beginning. However it does seem that they are going for plain Noisettes these days. 
I will move the page since the previous edits were just vadalism. 
MrJ 09:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at their official site and they do indeed seem to be using the two interchangably, but since one of their albums contains the text "of The Noisettes" I figured that it would be best to leave The Noisettes as the article with Noisettes as a redirect page. -Painezor 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page will stay here then until someone can show clearly that it needs to be moved.MrJ 11:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: due to some difficults this page is labled as The Noisettes although the bands name is Noisettes according to their offical and MySpace
Migospia says: Feb. 19 2007
Moving the note here will not do anything because most people will not see it wich defeats the point. there was a page Noisesttes but it is redirected with this page and I do not know how to change that, I thought someone with more experience would change that already but no one has.--Migospia 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Is anyone going to fix this page or anything?
I have been finding Wikipedia to be a source of mislead or bad information recently this trend has to stop
--Migospia 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix 

message: fine.  I've posted to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#2007-03-25 to get it moved.  You should learn this stuff yourself. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if you took this as an insult.  I did not intend it to be.  I admit to being a little frustrated and that shows in my comment.  But please understand its only my frustration at the situation and I meant no personal attack.  I am trying to improve Wikipedia in a way you suggest and am trying to encourage you to learn to do so where you can.  I could have done so in a more calm manner.  (John User:Jwy talk) 15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:MCPA

message: Isn't this the same as 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid? Shouldn't the pages be combined?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.244.141 (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid is not the same as 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. They differ in 2 locations (a methyl, and the second chlorine). Klbrain (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The safety data for this chemical is conspicuously absent, including the infobox images for the material, the toxicity in humans etc. 
Could someone please add this based on reputable sources? 2001:8004:CC1:143:E52E:D7D0:5A67:8CD5 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  toxicity
Talk:Bromborough

message: I've reworded the opening paragraph to state "small town" rather than "village" as it currently was.  Yes, the commercial centre of Bromborough is still known locally as Bromborough Village - but with a population of about 13,000 it's nearly the size of Heswall! Snowy 1973 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Bromborough still a village?

message: The BBC Ref states:
"Brunanburh could have been Bromborough, in Wirral, although other locations in Scotland, Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and Lancashire have been suggested by historians.
But, until now, Dingesmere has never been located." and then goes on to suggest that Dingsmere is Thingwall. 
Well its unlikely, as the only "mere" on the Wirral is Rabymere, right next to Bromborough. Also the old mill house (and later Tea House) at the mere was called "The Dingle", perhaps suggesting the River Clatter was once the Dingle. If it was then this is where the famous battle most likely took place. I know this smells of own research, but at least we could report the cited facts as we know them.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 14:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bloodbath of Brunanburh (937 AD) 
Talk:List of substances used in rituals

message: I was reading through this page when I noticed that under Ayahuasca, the ingredients are listed as various MAOIs and 5-MeO DMT. My understanding and what I see in every source I've checked is that Ayahuasca contains regular DMT, rather than 5-MeO; Hamilton Morris has actually started during one of his videos that 5-MeO DMT in conjunction with MAOIs is dangerous. I'm posting to the talk page because the claim does have a source, but it appears that both the original page and the archive are no longer available and I'm wondering whether I should overwrite that section with a new source and change the content to regular DMT. TandemDwarf (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayahuasca Contents
Talk:Battle Creek Central High School

message: Eh, this article WAS one line, but I fleshed it out a little.  I think this is a valid stub now.  --Haemo 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

message: The article's sources as written do not establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. Searching on Newspapers.com, I was able to find trivial coverage that may suggest that additional significant coverage exists, but that remains to be decisively proven. signed, Rosguill talk 00:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability