lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ears, Open. Eyeballs, Click.

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: The first citation is dead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.129.100 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link
Talk:Breast bondage

message: Are all of those really neccessary? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: "Sometimes the breast will leak some fluids or blood that may cause severe pain and breast cancer."
I can't imagine how breast bondage would cause cancer. It just seems totally unreasonable to me.
--Jacob Myers (Flame me!) 08:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious statement

message: It would appear that there are number of pictures of bondage around the breasts but only one of direct breast bondage.  Tying or restriction of the base of the breast as cause swelling, is common.  Would be well shown by File:Breasts in Bondage 4.jpg.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owner01 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional pictures 
Talk:Lindisfarne Association

message: I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 10:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing memetics category

message: I think that the Lndisfarne Chapel is at 37.949007,-105.658023. — goethean ॐ 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: :
While criticism is certainly appreciated and deserved, this particular form seems to be what I call an out-of-context criticism.  In 1977, at the time this quip refers to, a great many people were interested in researching self-regulated, but contained environments.  In such a case, one would necessarily overlook a marsh with fish in it, as that would have nothing to do with the subject at hand, but could of course inform it.  My guess is that further investigation will show this criticism to be unwarranted. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism
Talk:Oliver Barnes

message: Is there a source for the character's DOB (nearly 3 years younger than the actor seems unlikely) --MartinUK 10:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: OK, Rebecca Napier married Paul Robinson.  In doing that, she joins together the Napier and Robinson families and Paul becomes Oliver's stepdad.
Elle would then be Oliver's stepsister, Robert his stepbrother etc.  Now as far as I know that would count as being family even though not blood related.
So why do the stepbrothers, stepsisters etc keep getting removed from the infobox?
If anyone has any issues with Oliver's stepsisters and stepbrothers being in the infobox then please discuss it here.  --5 albert square (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything above. Paul and Rebecca's marriage has joined the two familes and the Robinson family members should be included in the infobox. Just because they are not immediate family, does not mean they should be removed from the infobox. - JuneGloom07  Talk?  20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: * Feckless.Rain the 1 BAM 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:List of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann antagonists

message: There seems to be a disagreement with how Lord Genome's title is used in this page, as well as the subpages that are linked from it. Can we come to some kind of general standard? --131.123.181.148 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helix King vs. Spiral King
Talk:Bob Day

message: To keep it in context this subject should follow the Federal election paragraphs not Land use regulation and Industrial relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryogden (talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean, but please feel free to rearrange the sections logically. Donama (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Donations

message: I refer to this quote: "getting to the 14.3 percent quota from 19 group voting ticket party preferences: Australian Independents Party, Australian Stable Population Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Smokers Rights Party, No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics, Building Australia Party, Rise Up Australia Party, Katter's Australian Party, One Nation, Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party, Australian Christians, Shooters and Fishers, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, Democratic Labor Party, Animal Justice Party, Australian Greens, Palmer United Party, HEMP Party, Australian Labor Party"
There seems to be a left wing bias. For instance, when the Greens first entered Parliament, there was no talk of how they used smaller minor parties, and an enlisting of all the different party preferences they used, to enter parliament.
I think the notion that is trying to be pushed is quite evident: Bob Day would not have been voted in, if he didn't have the support of these micro parties. This is an encyclopaedia, not a politicking tool. 129.180.137.107 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Left wing bias in article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bob Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004212744/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/01/15/00/family-first-wins-senate-spot-in-sa to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/01/15/00/family-first-wins-senate-spot-in-sa
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719134145/http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol27/vol27-3.php to http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol27/vol27-3.php*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719070934/http://solidarity.redrag.net/2006/06/21/independent-contractors-australia to http://solidarity.redrag.net/2006/06/21/independent-contractors-australia
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812163600/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-SA.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-SA.htm
:I have manually changed the failed archive-url to an earlier date, https://web.archive.org/web/20100923205519/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-SA.htm Not sure how to correct the bot date, so have left the help request open. Find bruce (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Specific quote from article inserted.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell20 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote attributed to Bob Day
Talk:Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (board game)

message: I'll add more detail when I locate my copy of the game. Oni no Akuma 11:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To come

message: This entire article is nothing but the descritpion of the game and its rules. Where are the real world information? At least a release date or something. I can't even find out if this is a classic game or a recent one. Is this a game from the 1960s or the 2010s? 188.142.243.18 (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only rules, almost no real world info
Talk:Cowan's mantella

message: And why was he or she honoured by having a frog named after him or her? Monado (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was Cowan? 
Talk:John Artz Farmhouse

message: I have included a link to the Commons category: National Register of Historic Places in Fairfield County, Ohio. The primary reference for this article is it's National Register inventory form. The standard for a quality WP article is that it allows the reader to make a fairly complete study of the subject.
In studying the John Artz Farmhouse and completing the nomination for the NRHP, the author wrote, "The gable front end and two story wing plan of the Artz house is not as common in the county... A review of Ohio Historic Inventory forms... ...supports this assessment" In the discussion that follows the author mentions specifically the Henry Musser House and the Pugh-Kettle House. Comparisons with these and other historic structures in the area that are on the NRHP are made. Both the details of the architecture and the historic relation to the other NRHP properties in the county are discussed. 
Photographs of the Musser, Pugh-Kettle and Artz houses are in the above Commons category. If the study of the property cited for notability, used for facts and entered into the Register discusses the properties in that category, surely a somewhat complete study would require an examination of available photos of them. I certainly welcome an editor who can expand the article to include a paraphrasing of the discussion in the nomination and incorporate the images in the article with the links to the WP articles. Even with a set of selected photos, a study of a historically significant building that neglected an overview of the county's other historic resources would be far from complete. 
Not including the link to the Commons category for the county (finest level of detail accurate) detracts from the encyclopedia's presentation of the information necessary for a fairly complete study of the subject. Not providing a link to some form of visual representation related to an article reduces accessibility for some readers. I don't see any policy that discourages such a link. I have a hard time seeing the way an article, particularly a stub is degraded by the presence of a small link to a closely related category on WP:SIS a sister project. MrBill3 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non specific Commons Category
Talk:List of online encyclopedias

message: Somewhere on this list, some one should include the encyclopaedia of Parapsychology done by the 
Society for Psychical Research, available at https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk. Rollo August (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Parapsychology encyclopedia

message: wikispooks.com infogalactic.com de.pluspedia.org 2.244.93.217 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make sure these wikis are in the list 

message: Has its time come? Jim.henderson (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justapedia
Talk:No-pan kissa

message: The article currently says "1978 ... in Kyoto" but  has Osaka 1980.  Is there a reference for the earlier date?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Tsuchida Yuichi of Kyoto appears to be a researcher in medical science, I'm deleting this per WP:BLP pending citation of a reliable source. -Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article in its current state is a mere summary of the personal memories of Akira Suei on the topic as found in "The Lucky Hole as the Black Hole" (see the references) which was then patched up with some additional sources that may or may not support the claims. Anyway, I am also not aware of any publications that satisfy WP:RS. -- 2A02:8109:9400:474:DC98:16E4:A99D:B276 (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First to open
Talk:Blommersia blommersae

message: I have transferred this species to the correct taxonomy, and updated most of the information pertaining to it. Consistency with the rest of the mantellid frogs still needs to be achieved across the board, so for now I am not editing the taxobox or any other details, except to make it correct. There were problems with the previous article, in that it listed non-existent synonyms and cited totally irrelevant articles. --Mark.scherz (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit
Talk:Cobalt (magazine)

message: According to it's article, Maria-sama ga Miteru was serialized in Margaret? Ninja neko 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maria-sama ga Miteru 
Talk:Breast self-examination

message: Why is there no mention of the emerging scientific consensus that BSEs do not save lives? This link to a large randomized trial supports the emerging consensus that BSEs are worthless unless the individual woman is highly motivated and has a strong risk for developing breast cancer.  Why is this information being excluded from this page? WhatamIdoing 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BSE doesn't save lives ?

message: The following studies should be included in this article for a complete overview: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1833942/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228347/  and sites like http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-detection (American Cancer Society) and http://www.breastselfexam.ca/ and http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp145.cfm. There is also a document related to the studies already mentioned in this article: www.sogc.org/guidelines/documents/181E-CO-August2006.pdf . 
Raluca c84 (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: These changes need some clean up, but they do name (sort of) three sources.   describes the text that runs "Breast self examination is accurate as mamograpphy and magnetic resonance imaging at detecting new breast cancers in high risk women .(according to American society of breast surgeons ,10th annual meeting,san diego ,california.)"
We may be understating the utility for the small minority of women who are very high risk.  It would be interesting to see if anyone has any life-saving (rather than cancer-detecting) data for that subgroup.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: About this:  I don't think that's correct.  The abstract says that the second examination took an average of seven minutes, and did not mention any instruction happening.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minutes
Talk:Austrochaperina pluvialis

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
:Support, sounds good. JMK (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Breviceps adspersus

message: The Bushveld rain frog article claims that the Bushveld rain frog's binomial name is Breviceps adspersus.  If the two articles are about the same species, they should be merged. --stephenw32768<user page><talk> 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would seem (, )that the merge is warranted. —Noah 17:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bushveld rain frog

message: what they don’t mention is that this frog has a little butt. look it up. tiny little cheeks. you will thank me later. 2600:6C48:647F:7869:E4D1:5674:8930:E959 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  frog has a butt
Talk:Breviceps fuscus

message: It is so cute, yet no picture, why?—178.164.148.208 (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no picture on this 

message: i cannot find an audio file for this animal if anyone can find one somewhere please get back to me Massimo510 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking For Audio File 

message: I am new to editing Wikipedia and I had planned to accord this matter but unfortunately I do not know how to and now I am sad. 2600:1700:6960:FF0:9694:CB60:1C49:B859 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it also called an avacado frog?
Talk:Ashtabula Harbor Light

message: Can someone please fix the map.  Lake Erie seems to have dried up. Davidships (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map
Talk:Desert rain frog

message: This article needs a picture of its subject, but even more, it needs something about/depicting the "distinctive" footprints it leaves.  Not even a description of the prints? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  photos 

message: Firstly, this article does not contain any pictures of what the frog looks like which makes it more difficult for the reader to truly visualize the frog's description. Additionally, there is no taxonomy/classification section and each fact mentioned in this paper must include more detail. For example, you mentioned that when threatened, the frog produces a high-pitched speaking sound. As a reader, I am wondering why this is their chosen defense mechanism and how it arose from evolution. Rwolff26 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Details and Key Points 

message: 1) I expanded on the habitat section. There were only two sentences on area found and a brief, incomplete account of land types they occupy.  
2) I added a reproduction section and began adding relevant information, although more could certainly be added.
3) I finally included the photo that this post needed. JackRuvin0 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates Dec 20, 2022 

message: — Assignment last updated by BUbiostudent (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Principles of Biology 2
Talk:Namaqua rain frog

message: :If that is so, why is this rain frog in "Least Concern" and not "Near Threatened"?  --Thenewguy34 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Are you looking for Breviceps Macrops? However to me, both the Namaqua rain frog and the desert rain frog make no difference in appearance. StormContent 00:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Forest rain frog

message: rain ffrogs are cool.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.227.254 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

message: The article is listed with the common name forest rain frog yet icun and other sources list the frog as northern forest rain frog i believe this is due to Probreviceps rhodesianus also having the common name forest rain frog. Massimo510 (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming  

message: Subspecies do not usually get their own article. There is very little content here so I suggest merge it into the Species article with redirect. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't think it is a hard rule. If there is enough content available that it can constitute a full article on its own it can be a separate article, but this would normally be a split from the species article when it gets too big. Do you know how to do a WP:Merge? Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok i do not know how to do a merge but thanks for the info Massimo510 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , It is not difficult if you follow the instructions step by step. However my experience is with desktop view so if you are working in mobile your experiences may differ. It is a useful skill, so I recommend at least considering giving it a try, as it is easiest when there is only a small amount of content to merge. If all goes well, great. If it goes horribly wrong, we can fix it and you will have had a learning experience. Let me know what you decide, or how it went. The trickiest bit is to remember to get the edit summaries in before saving. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Forest Rain Frog
Talk:Cophixalus balbus

message: I am a french contributor and I have not found the biological talk ! I have first write this message on Polbot talk page but it seems that the editor have leaved wikipedia. So, please, copy these lines into the right page. Thanks a lot.
On the Cophixalus balbus article we can read that the author is Albert C. L. G. Günther, however this one is died in 1914 and this specie was described... 89 years later ! In fact the author is Rainer Günther, born in 1941. Please could you make the correction on your bot... Thanks a lot. french user Givet. 81.48.252.34 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Günther & Günther
Talk:Utusan Malaysia

message: Reading through the article, it reeks of bias to smear the publication by compiling one-sided opinions sourced from the Opposition (Pakatan Rakyat). As one of the oldest newspapers still in print in Malaysia and still the highest selling Malay language newspaper, I was expecting backgrounds and the stories behind it's establishment, such as it's important role in getting the Malay masses to oppose Malayan Union. Instead the NPOV criticism took the spotlight right off the bat 
"While readership had rapidly declined in line with declining editorial quality...". 
"...blatant practice of double standards in its reporting..."
"...extreme racist rhetoric..."
Doesn't sound like something you would read from an encyclopedia, but certainly something that you would hear from the Opposition, whether they were true or not. To whoever made this article, take your political leanings out, it stinks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.94.32 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this article written by Pakatan Rakyat supporters? 

message: Utusan Malaysia is a separate newspaper ad not same with Utusan Malaysia.Here's the real differences:
Utusan Melayu is published in 1939,still remains as seperate newspaper till 2006.
-It changes to Utusan Melayu Mingguan in the early millenium as weekend newspaper as a reaction to the falling Jawi readers in malaysia.It's demise is on January 2006,before revived with the same name,June 2006 as a weekly 'sisipan' for utusan malaysia
-Meanwhile,Utusan Malaysia,published in 1967 as a daily edition for Mingguan Malaysia(Mingguan malaysia pubished earlier in 1965),still published till now.
It is confirmed by several artical in utusan malaysia itself.I'm sorry,but it's the truth.I will change it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qamarul Syahmi (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utusan Melayu IS NOT Utusan Malaysia!
Talk:Dyscophus antongilii

message: This article should be named, Madagascar tomato frog, according to the article of the genus, Tomato frog. Minataurus (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 
Talk:Glyphoglossus molossus

message: Content added by User:Khunpolrattachana needs checking. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Content history reviewed and all of User:Khunpolrattachana's edits from June 2014 had already been removed in August, 2014 by User:Revent. All remaining text is now supported by inline citations. I have removed the OR warning tag from the article (originally added and removed on 09 August 2014). Loopy30 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Glyphoglossus molossus, Blunt-headed burrowing frog - Mueang Loei District, Loei Province (47097003944).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 18, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-08-18. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 11:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD