lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:From Here to Eternity: Live

message: The infobox says the album is a Studio Album, but it's (I think) a live album...
I don't know to change this label.. can someone change it? (And plese tell me how to do it, lol...)
--PedroFonini 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The liner notes thank Bruce Dickinson, and this article links to the Iron Maiden singer. Isn't it more likely that this is actually [Bruce Dickinson, Epic Records executive], who also had a hand in Clash on Broadway? 94.196.125.53 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce Dickinson
Template talk:Hallucinogenic tryptamines

message: There are now two related templates:
 only for hallucinogenic tryptamines and  for tryptamines as a chemical class. Cacycle 15:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary with both these templates? 80.203.115.12 14:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template talk:Phenethylamines

message:  only for hallucinogenic phenethylamines and  for phenethylamines as a chemical class. Cacycle 15:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: There are now two related templates:

message: The Template:Dopaminergics places methyphenidate as a "piperidines" 'DA reuptake inhibitor' & amphetamine as a "Phenethylamine" 'releasing agent'... furthermore the Template:Stimulants has methylphenidate under "Piperidines" separate from the 'Phenethylamines' class... if one looks at Talk:Troparil#Removed content: methylphenidate overlap to troparil, etc.... one sees that a phenyltropane drug, made from the pyrolysis of cocaine freebase (crack smoke), can be overlapped with methylphenidate and be a nearly exactly perfect match.... I believe these three examples show this template of phenethylamines is incorrect in marking methylphenidate as a phenethylamine. It is piperidine not a phenethylamine or amphetamine relative (it is closer to cocaine than amphetamine). With the given information I am going to remove it from the template. 4.242.174.64 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, methylphenidate has both a structural relationship to phenyltropane drugs (in terms of structure-activity relationship to such drugs in their 3D spatial orientation, if not in terms of an actual chemical backbone) and a phenethylamine backbone and it can be considered a phenethylamine derivative from a chemical perspective.  It broadly shares a pharmacological relationship with both cocaine and amphetamine, but it does share certain properties with cocaine distinct from a typical amphetamine. Then again, ring-substituted phenethylamines and amphetamines share certain properties in common with psilocybin that they don't share with a basic amphetamine. This kind of thing is a bit arbitrary.  24.113.109.228 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  methylphenidate 

message: Xamoterol is not a phenethylamine derivative or analog in any sense.  It has a Phenyl-OCH2CH2CH2NH2 backbone, not a Phenyl-CH2CH2NH2 backbone. 24.113.109.228 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed Phenoxybenzamine, Prenalterol, Propranolol.  None of these are phenethylamines. 24.113.109.228 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xamoterol removed 

message: Venlafaxine should be added in the category phenethylamines. It is a phenethylamine derivative.
 |language=en}} 
79.106.215.22 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Can I Log In's  (talk) page 03:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020 

message: Please consider placing Venlafaxine in a different subcategory within Phenethylamines, such as Phenethylamines/Others: or Miscellaneous:
There is no evidence that Venlafaxine is a Psychedelic.
79.106.215.47 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: .  I agree. Desvenlafaxine was already in that section too.  Reba16 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider placing [[Venlafaxine]] in a different subcategory within [[Phenethylamines]], such as "Phenethylamines/Others:" or "Miscellaneous:"
Template talk:Hallucinogenic phenethylamines

message: There are now two related templates:
 only for hallucinogenic phenethylamines and  for phenethylamines as a chemical class. Cacycle 15:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: MBDB and MDMC and MDMA are not the template? is there some reason for this? Are they analogues of already listed pjenethylamines?--x1987x(talk) 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less notable? 

message: this template is called "Hallucinogenic phenethylamines", but it displays "Psychedelic phenethylamines".... there is a difference here that needs to be clarified (example: MDMA is Psychedelic, but not hallucinogenic). I'm not sure which needs to be changed, but as mdma is not on the list, i'm guessing it should read "hallucinogenic". --Someones life 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should be psychedelic -- and this template should be renamed.  --Thoric 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  title?
Talk:Wong

message: I have added a brief note on the origin of the surname Wong (黃). 
Although the previous description of Wong as a Cantonese surname is certainly erroneous, I have refrained from deleting it mainly because the subject matter is so difficult to explain. The wholly different Chinese surnames of 黃 and 王 share the same lingistic pronouciation in Cantonese and Mandarin. But in Mandarin, it can also resulted in Huang and Wang being used. To add to the confusion, with some other dialects it is not uncommon to have some other variations, like the use of Ng in Hokkien!
I shall leave this to the a better person to sort out! 203.186.238.241 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wong 

message: A listing of a "notable" person is in most cases, very subjective. Not many of the recent notables that had been listed earlier were recognizable (!)... and even worst, to have a name blatantly listed with no expansion on the background of the notable is not worthy of inclusion. So please present and support your notable person in more supportive detail, else it would be viewed as just hogging up valuable space here.
There should be a way for some non-biased quantitative way to decide who is and isn't notable. Your thoughts everyone? Flytrap canada 23:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, same for all other lists. If those people have a wikipedia article then they are notable. If they have an article but the article doesn't establish noteablity then nominate it for deletion. If someone adds red links then delete the name Nil Einne 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable Wongs"
Talk:The Pod

message: The paragraph describing the cover, and particularly the "Scotchgard bong", is hilarious, dubious, unclear, unsourced, and unencyclopedic.  Ween rules.  This article badly needs rewriting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.65 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cover art description 

message: Changed the part in the album info part saying the songs were recorded between 91-92, for a couple of reasons. First, it lists this incorrectly in the album info, then correctly later in the liner notes. Second, the album was released in late 91, so therefore they couldn't have recorded anything in 92. Third, in the liner notes of the album, which has been faithfully reproduced on this page a bit lower down, it is said the album was recorded between January and October of 91.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.124.249 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction
Talk:GodWeenSatan: The Oneness

message: Surely "Old Man Thunder" is supposed to be some sort of fucked up parody of "Night Moves"? RadioKAOS  –  Talk to me, Billy  22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

message: Is there any compelling reason this article's title is rendered "GodWeenSatan: The Oneness", rather than "God Ween Satan..."? It's idiosyncratic, and Wikipedia is very unusual in formatting the title like this- RSes generally opt for the regularly spaced form, with or without the subtitle: Ween's website ("God Ween Satan"), AllMusic ("God Ween Satan"), Pitchfork ("God Ween Satan: The Oneness"), Entertainment Weekly ("God Ween Satan- The Oneness"), Uncut ("God Ween Satan— The Oneness"), etc. The initial CD issue renders the title as "GOD WEEN SATAN - The oneness" on its spine, and the initial cassette issue has "GOD WEEN SATAN: The Oneness" on the tape. The form "GodWeenSatan" does occur in the Sputnikmusic review we link to, but so far as I can tell, the preponderance of evidence is behind the regularly-spaced form, with the camelcase form being an irregular variant not consistently backed by RSes. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album/article title
Talk:ADRIFT

message: , can you help establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY? , what are your main concerns? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 
Talk:Point of Entry

message: ---The top cover is correct, as it is the European cover.  However, the lower cover is incorrect, as it is the Remastered 2001 re-release, not the 1980's version.  The reamastered versions of all the Columbia/CBS-released albums have a gray border, where the initial releases do not have said border.Man of the night (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Cover

message: The cover on the right ist not the original one.
I added it to the alternate cover and watch this unrelated clip here.--E tac 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover 
Talk:Cooperative

message: This whole section seems to be pushing a socialist/communist POV under the guise of "Social transformation". It starts strong with this this statement: "Most workers cooperatives have in their DNA the social transformation role." It even mentions Gramsci as if he was a household name the reader would recognize with the "Gramscian terms", and not some obscure communist of no relevance.
This section should either be deleted or at the very least heavily rewritten. Arcade222 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the section for violation of WP:NPOV. If someone wants to re-add it, it needs to be rewritten from an objective perspective talking about cooperatives in communist thought (my impression is that cooperatives were only seen as tools to win people over to the workers movement in the short term by Marx and Lenin, who didn’t think much of them, whilst in the present communist academics have termed cooperative economy market socialism) Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: "Social transformation in cooperatives" 

message: The first sentence in the "Origins and History" section is marked as "citation needed".
>  Cooperation dates back as far as human beings have been organizing for mutual benefits. Tribes were organized as cooperative structures, allocating jobs and resources among each other, only trading with the external communities.
David Graeber's Debt: the first 5,000 years covers this pretty well.  Would that be an appropriate citation? Drewmca (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mind pasting the relevant text? I think it would have to be verbatim in the source otherwise it risks being WP:Synth. Also I’m not sure whether that is a WP:RS but when you do the citation for it, it’ll tell you whether it is WP:Blacklisted. It seems to be a reliable source. Alexanderkowal (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I’m sure there’s good quality articles or books written on cooperative history that will say something along those lines, the current sentence looks like someone’s WP:OR Alexanderkowal (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed under history
Talk:The Serpent's Egg (album)

message: There seems to be a problem with original research in the section called The song "Ullyses". There are several ideas presented that seem like speculation: "oddysey" is a portmanteau, and "Ullyses" follows from that; some people have heard "Isles of Ken" in a John Lennon song and maybe Brendan Perry was referring to this; and the "Isles of Ken" represent a quest for knowledge. There are no sources provided for any of this section, except "several Quivvy Workshops alumni and members in good standing of the Lisa Gerrard Message Board"—which is better than nothing, I suppose, but not exactly a reliable source. —Bkell (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this section, since there has been absolutely no attempt to address these concerns in the last four months. —Bkell (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The song "Ullyses"
Wikipedia talk:Refactoring/Refactoring of archives

message: Personally, I feel that the archives should not be refactored/reworked/summarized, except possibly on another page, with a link to summarizations placed at the top of the original page. For example, if we were to have a VfD or a RfA that were quite long, and someone wanted to make a nice summary, they could slap something on the top of the page saying "This discussion has beem summarized here by UserFoo", where here is a link to a subpage. Other people could post other summarizations/refactorings as well. --Improv 17:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Wikipedia talk:Refactoring talk pages

message: Hello! In this change, I had added text to this page which listed fixing dead links in other peoples comments (see example). However, the change was based only on what was implied in a table on a mostly unrelated page.  That is why I ask whether it is appropriate to change other people's talkpage comments so to fix dead links. Please vote yes or no below. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is fixing dead links a appropriate form of refactoring? 

message: I think it is perfectly appropriate. I would, however, make it an addition rather than a replacement link so that there is no chance of inadvertently changing some intent. MartinezMD (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: Hi. If another editor keeps on refactoring over my objection, moving my comment on a talk page not his own to a prior discussion I opened on an unrelated article (higher on the page, so less likely to be seen), and refuses to stop--saying it is ok for him to do that, how can I best address this? Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks Redrose64. Great point. People should instead of editing here, if they wish to comment, comment at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Question. To avoid having the same discussion on multiple pages, which fragments discussion. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:A Night at the Opera (Blind Guardian album)

message: Sorry but copying the name of another album is....lame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.188.169 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: " 18:28, 20 December 2007 195.3.113.169 (Talk) (6,822 bytes) (Corrected it according to a statement Hansi made in a german magazine)"
Can we get some confirmation? I would believe it anyway, but it'd be better to see the actual source.
Sherick (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait for an Answer 

message: This is marked as an opinion, but it's not.
I clearly, clearly remember reading an interview back then in which the guy said exactly this, also specifically complaining about Olbrich "disfiguring" the standard power metal songs he brought in by means of cut & paste.
I can't even remember in which language I read it, though, so I'm having trouble finding it. 
If anybody can dig it up...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.16.78 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stauch leaving the group in response to the new style 
Talk:Hayley Jensen Australian Idol

message: Hayley Jensen Australian Idol was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS however as nobody said keep I have left the content at Talk:Hayley Jensen to be merged. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 02:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Drum Corps Associates

message: DCI has its own page, so DCA should too.  Where are the DCA fans?  Please contribute! 
Lazytiger 16:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been editing some of the pages, trying at least to improve them.  On this page I removed a few corps because they are part of MCA or not a field corps, and even a corps which competes in DCJ.
Werecowmoo (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are all the DCA people?! 

message: I've been through this list deleting those articles that were copied from websites or were clearly promotional. Several of the survivors do not provide independent verifiable sources that they meets the notability guidelines, having only the band's own page as a reference, but I've left these for now to give a chance to reference properly.
An article must be neutral and encyclopaedic in tone, and  unreferenced claims of excellence or sentences beginning with "we" are clearly promotional. You cannot use copyright material. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following: 
*If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
*If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.
*If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article talk page. 
*Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note  at the article talk page with a link to the web page details.
* Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a  tag on the article page and leave a note at the article talk page saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bands

message: There's already an article about the DCA champions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCA_Open_Class_World_Champions.
I don't think the table is really necessary, but if it is, I think it should just include the champion from each season, rather than the runner-up, the scores of both, and the locale. It's too much trouble to maintain this information in two places.
JimBurnell (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions Table
Talk:Zebda

message: For the French Wikipedia, Zebda are "un groupe de rock français" (a French rock group). This can be understood as "a French group of rock" or "a group of French rock". Either way, I consider it a better definition than "a French world music group". "World music" simply expresses it has foreign music with an ethnic component, but gives little information about the style. Wikipedia in German uses just Musilgruppe.  I'm using "rock mestizo" for Wikipedia in Spanish, but I'm not sure of the most proper label in English: fussion rock?, indie rock?, crossover rock?, just pop or rock music?.--Erri4a 18:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The Amokrane brothers are also known (to a lesser extend) for their live performances recorded at least on 2 released CDs under the name "100% collègues". It is difficult to find any references for the disc themselves, but the music is closely related to the one from Zebda and the band includes some the members. 62.30.167.58 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Associated Act
Talk:Avenue

message: Please add any more definitions of avenue . . .
Isn't the most common use of "Avenue" as a type of street name (or a title of a street indicating a street's qualities, such as width), rather than a term indicating two parallel lines of trees?   If no one replies to this post, I'm going to change them around.  Mcgillionaire
:I removed the wording, so no rearranging is needed. All avenues are equal now. +mt 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Bantumi

message: Made into a redirect - no need to delete. Darksun 18:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "bantumi" really just another word for mancala, not a specific mancala game? (The List_of_mancala_games has many redlinks, and it might be better to have bantumi be one too.) — eitch 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Doodle Bob

message: Doodle Bob was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS but as nobody said keep I have merged and redirected all with SpongeBob SquarePants. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 02:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: * I have nominated this (and the other entries from "Spongebob Squarepants" below) for deletion because the whole thing is getting out of hand. It is totally acceptable to add seperate entries for main (and even sometimes minor) characters from popular television shows. These characters are ALL stub entries, and these mentions should be moved into the text of the main article. Half of these stubs aren't even facual character info, they're just adjective-laden blabbering. For instance, "Doodble Bob" is literally nothing more than a crappy doodle Spongebob makes of himself that comes alive (for one episode) and wreaks havoc on the characters. There need to be limits as to how cluttered Wikipedia gets, and don't give me the "Wikipedia is not paper" entry either...when we allow anything and everything to be included it looks messy and not well thought out. I nominate this (and the entires listed below) for deletion. Pacian 01:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
File talk:Circlestrafing.png

message: *Oppose delisting. Like most, I read this image the wrong way round when I first saw it (perhaps it would help if the colours were swapped, the eye is drawn to red as well as the centre). Nor am I particularly interested in the subject. But this image does significantly add to the article and its well executed. I think we are being way to hard on diagrams and illustrations at the moment. -- Solipsist 17:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments collected during unsuccessful attempt at delisting as a Featured picure