lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Edible mushroom

message: This review was published in June 2020 , another was published in 2021  Higher mushroom consumption is associated with a lower risk of cancer, according to a new study. The systematic review and meta-analysis examined 17 cancer studies published from 1966 to 2020. , .
The lead says "there is no scientific evidence that consuming "medicinal mushrooms" cures or lowers the risk of human diseases" but this is referring to Medicinal fungi not regular consumption of mushrooms. I think we need to make clear what the difference is. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Association with disease risk

message: I have seen conflicting advice on whether it is safe to reheat cooked mushrooms (or dishes containing them), and failed to find an authoritative science-based source. My impressions are that it used to be less safe than it is now, and that wild mushrooms are more likely than cultivated mushrooms to be dangerous when reheated. Can anyone provide reliably sourced guidelines?
* These official or official-looking sites look authoritative but I found no information on mushrooms there:
** https://www.fao.org/food-safety/food-control-systems/en/ seems to be about methodology, and to contain very little specific advice
** https://www.eufic.org/en/food-safety 
* These sound plausible and suggest the conclusions I mention above:
** https://www.reddit.com/r/mycology/comments/gpryui/is_reheating_mushrooms_dangerous/
** https://www.drweil.com/diet-nutrition/food-safety/reheating-mushrooms/
** https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/can-mushrooms-be-re-heated-safely
* Many popular sites state baldly that mushrooms become dangerous when reheated, sometimes explaining that “they contain so much protein”.
PJTraill (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe to reheat? 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edible_mushroom/Archive_1#What_does_%22Choice%22_mean?
I came here from another mushroom article to find out why the mushroom was called 'choice' and this page does not actually explain that meaning at all, especially considering the mushroom page I came from mostly talked about its medicinal effects/potential lethality. I'm not qualified, but I think it would greatly improve this article if there was an explanation of what the criteria means. Thank you for your efforts. 216.36.165.219 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bringing back a requested edit suggestion
Talk:Roper (band)

message: :The band is currently on hiatus as they work through some financial difficulties, resulting from dismal sales of their first album and tour.
Unless someone provides a reference for the above sentence, I'm going to remove it. Jpers36 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd also have to call it Original Research, which isn't allowed. Jpers36 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have a verification problem with a specific claim on the article, bring it up here and let's see if we can find a trusted source. Jpers36 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dismal sales"

message: I highly suspect this is non-controversial, but if anyone is wondering, after four years of no sources on GR, and since GR is essentially just background material to Roper, I have merged the articles to here. Had neither of these bands had an articles today, this is definately how the articles would have been written.
Also, there is some good published sales data now. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Guerilla Rodeo]]
Talk:Transportation network (graph theory)

message: Maybe this article should link to Network flow? All of the formal definitions given here are explained more thoroughly there. -- Nils Grimsmo 11:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The difference between transport / transportation is mainly linguistic: transport is British English, transportation is US English.  In my experience, transportation network in general usage tends to be exactly the same as a transport network: a road / rail / air network (in fact I hadn't heard it used for communication networks).  Should we simply have transport network (graph theory) to be consistent? --User:stochata 17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport / Transportation network
Talk:Medieval hunting

message: ===11 May 2005===
*09:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article appeared att DYK, 11 May 2005

message: *09:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''11 May 2005'''

message: Should there be some mention of hunting accidents and things like that? I mean, off the top of my head, William Rufus and John II Comnenus were killed in hunting accidents, so the hunt can be very important in the line of succession, for example. I'm not sure how to fit that in, or if it is necessary at all. Adam Bishop 20:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old comments

message: Edit by 69.138.170.147 (expansion ; organize; copyedit) was by me. Stbalbach 22:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by 69.138.170.147 

message: This article did not go through the current GAN nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 10:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to do that, but it would maybe be best if someone else could put up 'citation needed' tags where appropriate, and I could then try to ameliorate the problem. Eixo 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA
Talk:Reynolds stress

message: Thanks for this article!  Some questions:
*Should this be Reynold's stress or is it always plural?
*I would like to add equations taking into account friction at siphon.  How does this relate to a Reynold's number?  Samw 20:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

message: This may be a textbook thing but isn't D/Dt known as the Eulerian derivative, not the Lagrangian Derivative?  This way makes the most sense to me since D/Dt came from using the Eulerian description to describe a particle's motion.
----------------
Just wanted to say thanks for the article. It was very useful to me.
And, as far as I can determine, D/Dt is usually called Substantial Derivative, or Material Derivative.
----------------
Hmm. Well, as I understand it the Eulerian derivative would be the derivative at an Eulerian point, which would be  \partial/ \partial t , whereas the Lagrangian derivative would be the derivative following an individual Lagrangian fluid "particle", and is thus D/Dt. That's my usage. "Substantial Derivative" and "Material Derivative" are fine as well, except that these terms are used primarily in the engineering and materials literature and are not common elsewhere. Most physicists call D/Dt the convective derivative. Finally, to keep from confusing this with motion driven by buoyancy, astronomers call it the advective derivative, which is my actual preference. And yet I have also encountered some people who use "advective derivative" to mean not the full D/Dt part, but just  v \cdot \nabla . So there is no good answer.  Petwil 07:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the comments. Yea, I guess that sentence is a bit confusing. I haven't been logging on to wikipedia for a while b/c I haven't really had time.... and hey, anybody else is welcome to edit this thing to make it read better. Anyway that passage would be made clearer by writing a separate page about Reynolds-stress transport equations, so I guess I'd better do that, but it'll have to wait until a few weeks from now when I have time. Or somebody else could write that page if they haven't already.Petwil 06:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eulerian Derivative
Talk:Klopotec

message: I say we should change the name to "Wind-rattle", instead of "Bird-scaring rattle", it's much more appropriate IMO and it fits with the German name nicely too. The Post of Slovenia seems to agree with this aswell. Clicky, clicky edolen1 20:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we should change it to "klopotec" as this is the most unambiguous and (according to Google) the most often used name for the device. What do you think? --Eleassar777 09:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sounds good too. Although maybe we should add the pronunciation? I would myself, but I'm crap with writing phonetic in English.. edolen1 15:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I restored the original version of the use of these two terms. Any further attempts to change them without discussion will be considered vandalism. --Eleassar777 my talk 12:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself "vandalised" Ivan Cankar's page today, and then you write this?? -BT
If I have changed from original, it was unintentionally as I wanted to restore the original. Otherwise, discussion about Slovenes and Slovenians has been placed at Talk:Slovenians. --Eleassar777 my talk 21:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slovenian/Slovene

message: What is this "blackwood" that is mentioned as a material used in the construction of the klopotec? Was that simply translated from "črni les" or something like that? It is most likely "Črni Gaber", Hop-Hornbeam in English, Ostrya carpinifolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrya .
The traditional uses of hop-hornbeam are mallets, levers, parts of wooden machines like axles, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackwood?

message: I added "Wind-clapper" as a possible description in the English language, as "clapper" is a technically accurate description (see other wooden "clappers" used in children's toys and
traditional musical instruments for the similarity), and "rattle" tends to imply another mechanism,
although it is also correct: for example there is an ancient liturgical instrument also
referred to in English as a "rattle" which has a similar fundamental mechanism and not similar to, say, seeds in pod, the usual basic concept of "rattle". Note the cognates as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clapper instead of rattle
Talk:Bioerosion

message: Does anyone have a rate of the erosion induced by parrotfish? Daniel Collins 20:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: found one source saying it can be up to 9000 g/m^2/yr.  doesn't have a reference or methodology for the data tho.  Ungtss 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parrotfish erosion rate
Talk:List of places named for Francis Marion

message: I found this site, establishing the naming of Marion County, Iowa:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~iamarion/ShortHistory.htm Rogerd 21:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marion County, Iowa
Category talk:Destroyed landmarks

message: I'd like to suggest that this isn't a very useful category (because "landmark" is so subjective) and these either should be recategorized to [[:Category:Former buildings and structures, or one or moer of its other subcategories (including the possible addition of new subcategories). -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think Al Askari Mosque, Buddhas of Bamyan and Warsaw radio mast should be added to this list. --BlueTruth 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Beatles' Story

message: You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC
Talk:The Early Beatles

message: i have removed the 'profssional review' link as it blantantly isn't a review, nor professional. just a rating, tracklist and statement of fact.
:If it shows stars, in this case 3 out of 5 stars, it IS a review so it stays. Steelbeard1 01:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Professional review' 

message: You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC
Talk:Beatles VI

message: Notice the 2 songs (Bad Boy, Dizzy Miss Lizzie) recorded for the American market.  From at least one other source, I see it was indeed for this album, which is seen as a continuation of "Beatles '65", because of shortage of suitable new songs for this album.  If you listen to the non-soundtrack songs of the British "Help!" album, the 3 songs which appear there AND on Beatles VI are most like the Beatles' earlier songs.  Perhaps the Beatles were already starting to move beyond their earlier songs, and had to take a step back because of the record-company wish.
In early 1967, The Beatles agreed to have Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane released back-to-back on a single due to request for new release.  They had done those 2 songs first when they got back together in the studio in late 1966, and as a result of those songs going onto a single, they are not on the Sgt. Pepper album.
And speaking of a step back: Brian Wilson (of the Beach Boys) had already started working on what would become Pet Sounds album and was faced with request for album to be done in time for Christmas shopping in 1965.  There wasn't time to finish what would be Pet Sounds by then, and the Beach Boys had already done a Christmas album and a live album, and a greatest-hits album would possibly be interpreted as winding down their career.  The Beach Boys ended up doing a "party" album in time for 1965 Christmas shopping, and this too has been called by some a step back because of what we now know about Pet Sounds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  recording due to record-company pressure 

message: You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC 

message: The lead currently contains the sentence "It was the ninth album released into that market in less than one and a half years (Vee-Jay Records and United Artists Records also released one album each during that period)". I am no pundit, but I find it highly unlikely that the way I understand it - which implies that only nine albums were released in the US in a year and a half - is correct. What am I not getting? Does "that market" refer to something more specific than the entire US market? Or are the words "by the Beatles" missing? Or something else? 188.169.229.30 (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small unclarity
Talk:Rock 'n' Roll Music (album)

message: I added headings this article as it required them. I also added notes at the top with links to both Rock Music and Rock 'n' Roll as I was searching for these when I came across the article. Revoranii 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In at least the original U.S. 2-disc-album release, we might mention in the article a rather convoluted misattribution of the song "Get Back": It is stated to be from The Beatles / 1967-1970. In fact, it is NOT the version from that album; it is actually the version from the Let It Be album, whereas 1967-1970 has the single-release version, which is itself misattributed in that compilation on a supplemental sheet in the U.S. version as being the Let It Be version — so RnR Music contains what 1967-1970 (in the U.S.) claims to have, but not what it actually does have. 2601:545:8201:6290:1512:4FE:AFC6:C7FD (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album’s misattribution of “Get Back” 
Talk:Marvel Super Hero Contest of Champions

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project
Talk:The Beatles Ballads

message: had the tape in france too  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.53.150 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and in New Zealand, Germany, and India. Never released in Canada mind you. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:20 Greatest Hits (Beatles album)

message: The page had the information that the 5-minute edit of Hey Jude had been made in 1968 to be released on flexi-disc. However, this is not true, the flexi-disc edit was shorter, about 3:30. Also, that edit was mono; the stereo mix, featured on this album, would be made only in December 1969. Rsnetto74 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hey Jude" edit
Talk:TRIAC

message: Hi to all,
I found this link:
http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US3275909.pdf
US Patent 3 275 909 by Frank W. GUTZWILLER 
Filled on Dec./19/ 1963
Patented on Sept.27 1966
92.152.102.56 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRIAC patent 

message: Symistor--Юе Артеміс (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other names
Wikipedia talk:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution

message: This should be integrated into the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, should it not? Joo-joo eyeball 15:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of style

message: So, I see several problems with this page:
* As noted, it duplicates two existing (and well-established) guideline pages. It's much better to work on those pages than to start new ones.
* It combines two very different ideas into one article.
* The title is unnecessarily long.
* It tries to use soft, latinate jargon to keep from making a strong point.
I think it's unreasonable to plan to add this to the manual of style. --ESP 19:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this page
Talk:Paul Tergat

message: The phrase, "He is the principal winner of all times in that race" sounds awkward to me. Is this conventional British English? 
As an American, I wouldn't say "of all times," I would say "of all time."
Also, I wouldn't say "principal winner." I can imagine that this would mean that Paul has won the race more often than any other individual, but in American English, "principal winner" would mean biggest winner in some contest where there were several winners
I would rewrite the sentence as: He has holds the record for victories in that race, and holds the record time on the present 15km course, which he established in 1995."
Incorrect fact in the article: Tergat held the half marathon world record until 2006 when it was beaten by Haile Gebreselassie. It was not bettered by Samuel Wanjiru in 2005, as the article claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.64.174 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1 E-44 s

message: If 5.4 x 10-44 is the smallest increment of time, how could the first event occur at 1 x 10-44?
* The first event could occur at 1s x 10-44 because that time is after time zero. You could go on describing smaller and smaller increments of time if you wanted to (you could conceivably calculate the length of time it takes for light to travel across 1/1000000th of an electron, for instance), but there's nothing that you would be able to apply it to without being pointless. Dallas 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the statements I didn't believe.  Possible support is at .  I found a couple sites that explicitely agreed, but one directly cited WikiPedia and the other was a question-answer area, with the question answered by an undergrad (who may well have gotten his answer from Wikipedia). Brilliand 02:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Flax (disambiguation)

message: Is this really the case, or is it just the author of this that needed disambiguation?
Often, in accounting for use of farm hectares, Defra does not distinguish between flax and hemp. And I believe historically (at least) hemp fibre has been used, instead of flax, in manufacture of linen. Laurel Bush 09:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Banff and Buchan (disambiguation)

message: Do these constituencies cover the same geographical area as the old local government district?  If so it might be better to include the links within the Banff and Buchan page, as something like "the area remains a constituency used in the UK and Scottish Parliaments.", rather than having them separate in a disambiguation page as though they were entirely separate entities.  Joe D (t) 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ștefan Odobleja

message: Circumstantial evidence (e.g. Google search "Ştefan Odobleja") suggests that the reason for the obscurity of the Romanian inventor of cybernetics is because it is fairly probable that Odobleja did not actually anticipate Wiener's Cybernetics by a decade. It does however seem to be the case that Odobleja read Wiener's autobiography in 1972, and dedicated his remaining years to an attempt to establish his priority as the Romanian guy who invented Cybernetics first. The campaign seems to have been quite successful within Romania's borders. The present Wikipedia article reads like an attempt to export it to the rest of the world. Whatever the virtues of Odobleja's magnum opus on Consonantal Psychology, they would be better served by articulating, on their own merits and in their own terms, their contribution to psychological theory, than attempting to dislodge Wiener from the head of the table. As for "much of the material [in Wiener's book 'Cybernetics'] being just translations from French to English" -- apart from 'Cybernetics' having been published in France by Hermann at the same time as (or maybe slightly before) its U.S. publication by Wiley, there seems to be no basis for this strange assertion.
Nnvsnu 04:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable ...
Talk:WRDZ (AM)

message: This article was proposed for deletion but consensus was to keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WRDZ for a record.  Postdlf 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed for deletion decision
Talk:WKTG

message: This article was proposed for deletion.  See the record at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WKTG (FM) for the result to keep.  Postdlf 23:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—103.67.157.14 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the coordinates a bit, but they were basically correct according to the ref cited in the article. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is, preferably with at least one source to back it up. Deor (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error