lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:MBDB

message: Folks lets please sound at least sound moderatly smart in drug articles.  No reason to give the DEA fuel.  I had to clean this article of all "yous" and other sentances addressing the reader.  This is an encyclopedia not a how to guide.
Quote:
"Just like with MDMA, if you must use the drug, it's best to make sure you're hydrated at all times and take occasional breaks from dancing or other strenuous activities. Dosage, according to PiHKAL, is 180-210 mg; the proper doasge relative to body mass seems unknown. A good starting dose for an inexperienced user is around the 150mg range. If the user has done MDMA before, then using the dose according to PiHKAL is a good starting dose."
This is just awful. In the future read better written pages like the one on mdma before editing.  Second, for gods sake do not use slang.  "If the user has done mdma"?  Fuck.  No one will take that serious.  That was written poorly and does not contribute to the article so I have deleted it.  
Foolishben 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned

message: Isn't it unnecessary or improper to say "[MBDB] is the alpha-ethyl-N-methyl analog of MDMA (Esctasy)" when MDMA is already N-methylated. Perhaps it should be "...analogue of MDA" or the "N-methyl" should be removed. I'm going to remove the "N-methyl" portion but if I am mistaking please clarify. --Astavats (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  N-methyl analogue? 

message: I'm going to remove the redirect from MDBD and flag it for deletion.  Isn't it true that the correct abbreviation is MBDB? Klortho (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does MDBD redirect here?
Talk:3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine

message: I don't know of any sources (I'll try to find some later), but I think this article should explain how MDA differs from MDMA in that MDA has more visuals and a better body high while MDMA makes you feel more emotional (loving everyone), makes you feel more like dancing and moving around, makes you feel more euphoric, and that MDA and MDMA are often mixed together in ecstasy pills. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better explanation

message: I removed this from the "Effects" section:
It did not belong there and needs to be verified if it will be placed back into some other section of the article.
--1000Faces (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MDMA Metabolite?

message: That's pretty obviously false. There's nothing particularly special about a methylenedioxy ring and I imagine there are many perfectly legal pharmaceuticals which contain the structure. Tadalafil is one, as an example. I'm going to remove the sentence. 74.80.58.186 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "The US has also essentially banned any drug with (methylenedioxy) in its structure"

message: We read, "Of particular note in the sexual aspect was its effect to greatly increase the enjoyment of receptive anal intercourse."
No citation. I've never heard this on the grapevine, but the grapevine is unreliable anyway. I googled "MDA anal" (without the quotation marks). After three pages of irrelevant hits, the first relevant hit was this wikipedia article. No other relevant hits on Google, except one guy who wants administer MDA rectally before a concert. This suggests this comment is spurious. If the author cannot justify the factoid with a citation, it should be removed. 69.226.110.66 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anal Intercourse dubious 

message: There's no other Methylenedioxyamphetamine so I don't think we really need the 3,4- prefix here. Aethyta (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it isn't consistent with our naming scheme for other methylenedioxy compounds. I think it was originally named this some time ago and was never changed. Sizeofint (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Put in a move request. For some reason only admins can move this. Sizeofint (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

text: There are two compounds which can be named methylenedioxyamphetamine:  2,3-Methylenedioxyamphetamine and 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine.  I have converted Methylenedioxyamphetamine into a  page.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move
Talk:2C-T-8

message: Is a citation for "There have been no confirmed deaths due to 2C-T-8" really necessary? If the statement is not true there would information regarding it. Also it says "no confirmed deaths" implying there may have been deaths but it was never confirmed to be 2C-T-8. I won't remove it, but I just feel it isn't really necessary.--Astavats (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: [citation needed]
Talk:2C-T-21

message: After seeing a discussion on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, I removed an unsourced assertion in this article that Operation Web Tryp was launched as a result of the death of a user who purchased drugs from a named individual. This edit was already reverted once and someone suggested I explain my reasoning here in case there is any further dispute over this material.
No source was given for the reference to this individual, who does not have his own Wikipedia article. The article Operation Web Tryp does not name him either, but indicates that the drug involved in this other death was not 2C-T-21 but alpha-Methyltryptamine.  
Mentioning the name of a living individual in a very negative light, without giving any source, failed WP:BLP and WP:RS standards. The individual has no reported relevance to a discussion of the chemical 2C-T-21. The only reason to mention him in this article seemed to be to take a slam at him personally. The assertion that the DEA operation, which resulted in multiple arrests,  was launched solely because of his actions is not backed up by the other article. If the editor had attempted to include the same material there (perhaps he did, I haven't checked the history)  it would have failed WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT considerations.  It clearly did not belong here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of irrelevant, unsourced info about a living person
Talk:2C-T-2

message: the "E" in 2c-E stands for 'Ellis'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.210.160 (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm probably violating wikipedia talk guidelines by even typing this, but i think it is worth mentioning that according to anectdotal evidence i have amassed myself, and if you review user reports on erowid (i'm sure neither are considered valid sources) 2ct-2 is kind of famous for causing digestive issues, diarrhea the next day is very common.  since it is a poorly researched chem to begin with i dont know where if anywhere the proper wiki citation could be found, but i felt it worth mentioning.  research and include, or delete and ignore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.116.182 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Digestive issues
Talk:2C-N

message: "Shulgin accounts his experiences after ingesting 2C-N"
The reports in Pihkal are not neccesarilly Shulgin's own experiences. Some of them may be, I'm honestly not sure, but I'm pretty sure Shulgin has stated that they are accounts from friends or colleagues of his who helped try out new substances. Anyone have a reference or any info on this? 74.80.58.186 (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  His?
Talk:Conduction band

message: explain the difference of conductivity in semiconductor, conductor and insulator using energy diagram
Actually this is a very useful definition. I got to this through a link from another article which failed to clearly explain the role of the conduction band. Of course the description could be considerably more detailed. However, this does appear to be an important aspect of physics and at least as notable as the histories of minor suburban railway systems which go unchallenged elsewhere on Wikipedia. Persephone19 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

message: The article, as it stands, says that metals have overlapping conduction and valence bands. This is not true in many classic metals. For example, let's look at the very best metal conductor there is: silver. As you can see in this site (), the Fermi level in silver crosses only one band.
The usual definition of a metallic/semimetallic conductor, as far as I'm aware, is that the Fermi level crosses at least one band. This means that there are partially filled states which are able to transport charge from electrode to electrode.
I propose deleting this article and valence band, redirecting them to a fixed version of the band theory article.--Nanite (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metals overlap bands? & Proposed deletion 

message: The description of "freeing" an electron from "its atom" is far off the mark. "Freeing" an electron is called ionization; conduction electrons are not free - they remain bound electrons, just like valence electrons. In one-particle theories of crystalline solids, energy levels are generally delocalized (they are Bloch waves), regardless whether valence or conduction band levels.
In a completely filled valence band, there are no vacant states, so the delocalized electrons cannot change to another state of similar energy (Pauli principle), i.e. no charge redistribution (= current) is possible. In contrast, the conduction band has empty states that are energetically degenerate (or near-degenerate), so electrons can change between these states easily (charge redistribution = current occurs). The differentiation into semiconductors, insulators and conductors/metals has therefore nothing to do with "free vs bound" or "localized vs delocalized" electrons, but is a a consequence of the Pauli principle and how the Fermi level lies relative to the bands.
Illustrations of overlapping valence and conduction bands are popular, but dubious (there is no meaningful way to differentiate which of the overlapping bands is the valence band and which is the conduction band). A consistent definition of valence/conduction bands is based purely on the energy relation of bands with respect to the Fermi level: conduction bands are the bands containing energy levels above the Fermi level; valence bands are bands containing the levels below the Fermi level. In a conductor, the valence and conduction bands are thus the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.110.66 (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation in terms of free/bound and delocalised electrons is bogus
Talk:2C-D

message: .. such as SERT, NET & DAT affinities. --0dorkmann (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest a scientist or researcher to find out more about the pharmacology.. 

message: 2C-D has been found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllanthus_niruri
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283348385_Comparative_Evaluation_of_Antimicrobial_and_Anti-Inflammatory_Activities_of_Ocimum_sanctum_Phyllanthus_niruri_and_Cadaba_fruticosa_An_in_vitro_Approach_with_Emphasis_on_Detection_of_their_Bioactive_Co Utaninja (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2C-D Additional Source
Talk:2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine

message: I don't think the molecular structure of this compound should be labeled with "(R)" because the letter R is otherwise used in these drawing to represent a generic alkyl group.  A better way to label the stereogenic center is the use of an astrix "*." This is the notation used by chemists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.131.38 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling 
Talk:2,5-Dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine

message: The tone of this article sounds like a commercial for users.  Ridiculous.Freakdog (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Hi, people, I think that a drugbox might be more appropriate for this page than the chembox. What do you think? Fuse809 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Chembox vs. Drugbox

message: The section on legal status in Canada seems to be largely incorrect. The first citation points to an out-of-date page when the actual act it cites doesn't contain any info on DOI http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2012_1/page-13.html?texthighlight=amphetamines+amphetamine#s-44.
The second citation just links to the Controlled Substances act.
The third link is a 404 so I can't say for certain what was there.
This seems to imply that DOI is in a legal grey area or possibly unscheduled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron91 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Status in Canada 

message: This tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor is absolutely brilliant stuff for treating lung inflammation and losing weight. --0dorkmann (talk) 0dorkmann (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNF-alpha inhibitors
Talk:Board of governors

message: This article needs a significant rewrite.  It is factually inaccurate and missing much of the complex detail. -Howardjp 15:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you (or anyone else) be specific as to the inaccuracies? Andrewa 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Why does NYS board of regents redirect here? -Semisomna 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: See Talk:Wisconsin State College of Milwaukee#Board of Visitors. Andrewa 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Board of Visitors
Talk:Datura wrightii

message: It's not usual to include other species in a genus in the "see also", since they can easily be reached from the genus page, and this avoids having to maintain many separate lists as articles are written for additional species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your justification seems reasonable (I'm the guy who put the list into the article). But shouldn't there be a "See also" with a link to the genus? Lou Sander (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the taxobox, but clearly from your experience, not all readers see it there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 
Talk:Andrew Weil

message: This article shouldn't use the term "alternative", but "complementary" instead. There is no such thing as an alternative to medicine. There is no alternative to a vaccine, antibiotics, etc,... But there can be complements to a medicine, even if they are placebos, as long as they help a patient in any way.
All those articles about "alternative medicine" should start with a warning because they are misleading, based on nothing but pure belief, and therefore against what an encyclopedia is supposed to be: a source of knowledge. Romanoskov (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative medicine does have a specific meaning - please see Wikipedia:Alternative medicine for an explanation. We also tend to follow the wording used by reliable sources, so if all the sources said "complementary" then we would use "complementary". We also don't decide whether the reliable sources are using the wrong word - an encyclopaedia simply summarises current understanding. Xurizuri (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Literature on pseudoscience also commonly mention how alternative treatments can often also serve as a substitute for more effective medicine.  Complementory (or integrative) are common slogans to sell it as something to be added on top of mainstream medicine, something that might somehow be more clueful about aspects that "allopathic" medicine apparently ignores, etc.  It may well be what Weil attempts, but it would be an exception if it was really an evidence-based practice (and we'd need independent reliable medicine-quality sources that make these claims to promote that).  Also, this is presented as if Weil was unique, but around the world many actual physicians have also promoted alternatives, or traditional practices, at the same time and there are clinics based on this principle.  —PaleoNeonate – 23:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complementary medicine Vs alternative medicine
Talk:Rick Strassman

message: *Created the "Hallucinogen Rating Scale" which he used during DMT studies.
*"His research group documented the first known role of melatonin in humans." (Erowid.org)
*President and Co-founder of the Cottonwood Research Foundation
*Upcoming book "Inner Paths to Outer Space" from Dr. Strassman with Luis Eduardo Luna, Ede Frecska, and Slawek Wojtowicz - reference--Astavats (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: If this bio is to remain, it would be useful to include information about current position and, perhaps, why he left the Department of Psychiatry, University of New Mexico School of Medicine (at least he is not currently listed).AlbertHall (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added on 13:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current activities 

message: I'm sorry but this proposed deletion is just ludicrous. Rick Strassman was the 1st man to start psychedelic research after a long hiatus. His book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" is a bone fide classic, just because the title may make skeptics blanche doesn't mean his work is not notable. That book spawned the very well known movie of the same name directed by Mitch Schultz. I agree this page needs more secondary sources, but as it stands it is not a bad little bio of Strassman. Considering Wikipedia is a public resource, deleting his profile is insanity. He has carried out much research that is groundbreaking. There is a big difference between groundbreaking and fringe, fringe will remain unknown in the future, whereas groundbreaking research will be remembered in burgeoning fields like psychedelic research. I'll work on adding some secondary references as I have already done and notify the psychedelic community of this decision so that others may want to edit and improve this page. 
Probrooks (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion? (you gotta be kidding me)
Talk:Otherkin/Archive 1

message: The opening section has a clearer mention of multiples in the community now.  A lot of those same multiples will probably hit me if they see I've linked them to an article on DID *cowers*, but there appears to be no Wikipedia article on healthy multiplicity.  There is a very brief section within the DID article on it, but this strikes me as a situation where the two cultures are perhaps different enough to merit two articles that link to each other.  Anyone up for the challenge? :) Vashti 02:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiplicity
Talk:Refresh rate

message: From the current, as of writing, version of the article: "Light pens and guns cannot be used on fixed-pixel displays because they have no electron beam to detect. Pen tablets and touchscreen LCDs are used as a substitute for them, but the latter require a specially-designed LCD panel and are mostly only found in point-of-service monitors. The Nintendo DS is an example of a video game system that has a touchscreen LCD." 66.51.102.177 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph apparently written before touchscreen phones 

message: "But this is rarely a problem, because the only part of an LCD monitor that could produce CRT-like flicker—its backlight (if fluorescent; LEDs have no flicker)—typically operates at around 200 Hz."
I think this sentence is seriously wrong. The problem is not so rare (judging by numerous google hits of the "LCD backlight PWM flicker"). Also, LEDs do produce flicker just as fluorescent --> in fact, even more so because their on/off response is more sharp. The flicker in LCD backlight is due to the PWM brightness control, not the bulb technology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.177.210 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flicker of the LCD displays 

message: I think this article fails to explain why the higher refresh rate, the better (other than CRT screens, where low refresh rates produce flickering). If a frame rate of 24 fps is widely used and accepted as enough for a fluid, nice display of video images, why refresh rates on LCD screens need to be higher than that? --Savig (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a higher refresh rate is better?
Talk:C++ Standard Library

message: Currently there's quite a lot of mess in the articles about C++ containers. A lot of content is duplicated across articles about similar containers. Also, we have quite much material that is reference manual-like or too detailed. I think the situation could be improved by reorganization. My suggestion is that we implement the same structure as in the C++ standard:
*Sequence containers (C++) - array, vector, list, forward_list, deque, 
*Associative containers (C++) - map, set, multimap, multiset
*Unordered associative containers (C++) - unordered_map, unordered_set, unordered_multimap, unordered_multiset
*Container adaptors (C++) - queue, stack, priority_queue
Since each article would cover similar containers, there would be quite less content duplication. The quality of the articles would increase, since the material such as differences among containers could be covered in one place. Lastly, the WP:NOTMANUAL issue would be reduced: the function listings could be merged (I think we could have tables similar to , just not for all containers at once and maybe using different style), the functionality itself could be compared, and examples merged. Any thoughts? 1exec1 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree for merging all these articles as User:1exec1 proposes. Recently I had a kind of dispute concerning WP:NOTMANUAL about code in the article Queue (abstract data type), where all the code examples of queue has been removed: . Adding code - examples demonstrating a container is valuable. Having a workable example a reader can evaluate what has been reading in the article and the article is not becoming a manual. Ggia (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I've merged the first batch of articles. Please see how it looks. The target page needs quite a lot of copy-editing and cleanup now, though the main ideas have been implemented. 1exec1 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{anchor|reorg}} Reorganization of the articles about C++ containers 

message: There's  an ongoing discussion about whether C++ Standard Library is a proper noun or not. Please express your opinion. 1exec1 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  C++ Standard Library: proper noun or not? 

message: Why it is not mentioned in the text? Is there a reason for that? What about LLVM's implementation?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:CFFB:BFC5:528C:3C3C:A5AF:E8CE (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally had the same question. Aren't libstdc++ (with libsup++) and libc++ (with libc++abi) the most used implementations? And MS STL? Why are they not even mentioned? Gsnxn (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU C++ Library
Talk:Hawarden

message: To avoid revert wars, please note that Northop Hall is not the same place as Northop! -- Arwel  16:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Northop & Northop Hall

message: The article mentions Hawarden being a town.  This is incorrect, it is infact a village. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.245.153 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawarden