lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Phronima

message: I think - though I am not certain - that Blue Planet's claim about this creature inspiring the alien films was not about the appearance, but rather the behaviour: the 'crawling inside another creature to develop.' Of course there are distinct differences (the alien doesn't kill the host first, but only at the end; the alien 'mother' does not get in with the developing egg/larva, among other things), I think that is what they meant. Does anyone have any further information on this? As I am only guessing, I don't want to put this in the article. Mad2Physicist (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alien Inspiration

message: I heard this on Blue planet too. I would say that this series was created by David Attenborough who is brother of Richard Attenborough, and he his a film director of some note (and sometime actor, eg Jurasic Park). So maybe there's some inside knowledge here. I also think that it does look a little like the Alien which where the influence comes from rather than the reproductive cycle, which as you say, is more like that of a parasitic insect such as some wasps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtadavies666 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien Origin
Talk:Phthorimaea operculella

message: Hello,
overall the article is well-written and well organized. My changes were mainly adding in links to other articles, fixing grammar errors, and rewording sentences. The information here is great, but I would recommend more variety in the transitions you use because there were some sections that had repetitive word choice. 
Slzeng (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Overall, I thought that you did a great job and that you provided a lot of detailed information! There were some sentences that were phrased a bit strangely and were run-on, so I provide suggestions on editing those. I also suggest some places where you could add some more information/detail, which would help provide some context for the reader. For example, I suggest adding some more description about the part about warmer climate in the habitat section, the part about experiments in the oviposition section, and adding examples of the chemical factors in the host plant selection part. Also just saying “experiments” or “studies” can be vague, so maybe you could mention some specific studies that show that claim or some specific researchers that have studied this? It would allow the reader to have more detailed information and know that this information is coming from a reliable source. Also, overall, I think that you could consider adding some more information about habitat and mating, so that there is more balanced coverage between the different sections. RV2014 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for Class
Talk:Pie crust crab

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Pinnotheridae

message: We also have an article entitled pea crab and I don't know if that article is perhaps intended to be about one species of pea crab in particular, or one genus? We also have this article on Pinnotheridae, the pea crabs. Maybe the two articles should either be merged, or perhaps differentiated in some way? They were not directly linked until I just did that. Invertzoo (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is about Pinnotheres pisum, Invertzoo. Maybe it should be tidied & renamed. GrahamBould (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles on pea crabs in general
Talk:Thrombocythemia

message: Jfdwolff, Why do you think Lab Tests Online UK is not notable enough to have a red link? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lab Tests Online UK 

message: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08122.x JFW | T@lk 19:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCSH guideline 

message: I plan edits to this article, and welcome scrutiny by those who have contributed to it in the past, such as User:Ozzie10aaaa, User:Iztwoz and User:Jfdwolff.  Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming edits
Talk:Guinusia chabrus

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  -- ascidian | talk-to-me 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: I am having a difficult time finding information on this species (Plagusia capense), or even the genus.  However, I have found sources that describe a "Red Bait Crab", Plagusia chabrus.  Perhaps they are synonyms?  The "SeaFriends" reference implies that this is the case.  If so, there is a commons image labeled as P. chabrus which would be a useful addition to the article. I will redirect the synonyms to this article for now, but more definitive taxonomic references are still needed here. --BlueCanoe (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomic synonyms?
Talk:Plagusia squamosa

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Planidium

message: Sorry, marked my last edit "MINOR" in error. It included small,but substantial changes JonRichfield (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: This article has way too many unexplained jargon words. I say that as someone who has a bachelor's in applied linguistics and an interest in entomology since childhood. Etomology (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing
Talk:Hemolytic anemia

message: This is a red hot subject in haematology: intravascular haemolysis causing pulmonary hypertension and related vascular complications: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/13/1653 JFW | T@lk 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool- the whole notion of NO interaction with hemoglobin in the RBC is a hot area, I wasn't aware that free hemoglobin would create a problem by this means, the iron is all I had read about. A simple search on terms turned up about 93 hits, too many for complete list. I'll post a few soon. Also of possible interest, hemoglobin or hemin or related things can ( protectively LOL) up regulate heme oxygenase in tubular epithelia cells, so things like hemoglobin may be net protective effects ( cites to follow maybe ...). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequelae 

message: I didn't think I was making up that earlier comment but couldn't remember details. See 
Stepuro etal specifically and others here,
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allosteric effect related to NO ( bit OT, but may be of interest elsewhere ) 

message: is a review on haemolysis-related vascular changes. Should be able to replace all those references above. JFW | T@lk 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and ad it somewhere but primary sources are not discouraged here and some aspects generate a tractable number of hits. It is hard to find review articles are free full text so if you could find one like that it would be a great help and establish some context. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again 

message: I propose merging Congenital hemolytic anemia and Acquired hemolytic anemia into this article. This one is not long enough to justify forking. The forks are very much duplicates of what is already written here, and, according to http://stats.grok.se/, disappointingly few readers find those forks anyway to make a change to it. If merging, the classification of :Template:Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes may remain the same, but with unlinked hereditary and acquired. The infoboxes in the forks may be merged too. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, there are too many "What links here" to justify merging. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of ways to classify haemolytic anaemia. This is not a bad way of going about it. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: ... complications are quite common. The mechanism is still a bit obscure doi:10.1111/bjh.13183 (review Br J Haem) JFW | T@lk 22:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrombotic
Talk:Golden Ticket Awards

message: Having just created this article, I would like for other Wikipedians out there to help expand this. I would also like to compare this to Mitch Hawker's polls, as a lot of us think that Balder should be up there among the top woodies in the world. WillMcC 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Plecoptera

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Eusthenia sp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 23, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Eusthenia sp.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon
Talk:Pogonomyrmex

message: Does anyone have a citation showing they have the same venom as cobras?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.44.135 (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cobra Venom 
Talk:Polychelidae

message: Where is the genus Stereomastis Bate, 1888 ? They are mentioned by Ahyong (2009) The Polychelidan lobsters: Phylogeny and systematics (Polychelida: Polychelidae) and by De Grave, et.al (2009) A classification of living and fossil genera of decapod crustaceans. --92.195.69.221 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing genus
Talk:Kankhal

message: Note:  Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article  --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 13:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition 

message: *Work on the Upper Ganga canal, commenced in April 1842, between Haridwar and Kankhal [10]. Apart from being home various temples and ashrams of various sects, Kankhal also has numerous old havelis, mansion, now visitors attraction, especially heritage tours. Mostly built in previous century, they are known for their frescoes and haveli architecture, and were built by princely states, and zamindars for their stay in the pilgrimage town during summer months.
Tha text mentions a canal built in 1842, and then refers to the "previous century". I could interpret that refence to mean the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries. If anyone know the right anser, could they please change it to specify the right one?   Will Beback  talk   04:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which century? 
Talk:Normal coordinates

message: The term "normal coordinates" also arises in physics in the description of small oscillations...
*Agreed. The Chinese version of this article talks about the physics topic instead. I would suggest a disambiguation.--CaffeineP (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal Coordinates in physics 

message: This article refers to the book Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. I believe his Riemannian Manifolds would be much better, as it discusses the terms in these articles (afair Smooth doesn't?). --pred (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee reference
Talk:Portunus pelagicus

message: Portunus armatus und Portunus pelagicus sensu stricto are different species. See Lai et 2010. And even if they were not different Portunus pelagicus would have priority because this name is older (Linnaeus 1758) than Portunus armatus (Milne Edwards 1861) --Melly42 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different species
Talk:Protichnites

message: There's an article here regarding Protichnites. Don't know if it's relevant enough to be included, but seeing how the article only consists of one paragraph right now... 97.104.210.67 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The treatment of these mixed-bag trace fossils as a genus would require a type species and a generic authority. While the ICZN still recognizes such a category, many researchers treat these groupings as informal. Except for the lone mention of 'genus' in the lede, this article treats the group informally. Unless some editor wants to explain why a collection of diverse fossls is a genus, perhaps we should opt for the easy way out.--Wloveral (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus?
Talk:Kishkindha

message: This is directed to the author of this article. Is it possible for you to contact me at: info@maya-original.com
I would like to get some detailed information on the trip to Kishkindha. When I go to India, I would like to take the trip you took. It looks great.
Jai Shri Hanuman!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.113.226 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pseudosphinx tetrio

message: some more information on the larva? i found this site " http://www.allatsea.net/article/January_2007/The_Value_of_the_Frangipani_Worms " are these the same creatures?  if so maybe we should include some common names for them because i've only heard of them as jailbreak Caterpillar and worms... what is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killemall22 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe we could include...
Talk:Psocoptera

message: "in fact, in 2007, Atlantopsocus adustus, a species native to Madeira and the Canary Islands, was found to have colonised the mild Cornish coast of southwest England.[4]"
How is this part of the sentence pertinent?  If it is, is it necessary? --FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening 

message: This is a common problem of wikipedia: someone hyperlinks a term with multiple meanings. A given link should jump to a relevant article. How does hyperlinking WING venation to an article on plant LEAF venation clarify. 
I guess that might clarify the issue to some degree. But ultimately there should be a little section on wing venation. And given the importance of wing venation in identification and classification, perhaps that would be a useful section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow999 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  non apropos links 

message: Booklouse currently redirects to this article, but I think it should have its own. The order is quite broad. Most people probably never notice any psocids in their lives other than booklice, which are of economic significance and are very different in appearance from the species currently pictured. Zip-x (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, will create a stub article. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split 

message: There is no reference to the Order Corrodentia, with booklice being wingless and barklice with wings.
Does Corrodentia no longer exist is Science?12voltlighting (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly or also called Corrodentia (booklice and barklice) 

message: This section seems to imply that Lice can jump.
"The legs are slender and adapted for jumping, rather than gripping, as in the true lice.
But the head lice page says specifically
"Head lice cannot fly, and their short, stumpy legs render them incapable of jumping, or even walking efficiently on flat surfaces."
Did I misunderstood? 79.11.109.71 (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is talking about the booklice / barklice / barkflies - the member of Psocoptera that does not include Phthiraptera (the head lice). So yes, the Psocoptera booklice in this article are good jumpers. The head lice are NOT good jumpers. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an implication that Lice jump?
Talk:Psychodidae

message: Wikipedia is not a housewife book - I love my drainflies, they are harmless and have learned to live in the shithole 100 times longer than humans and will so - please delete the drain fly control section, which is an ecologic hazard anyway.
While wikipedia is not a repository for instructions I feel one of the main draws to this page is information on removing these pests. As such the section on control should be removed and instead a link to an appropriate website with the same instructions should be provided. Darkwraith (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that source two for these creatures may be potentially false as exterminators have an obvious vested intrest in presenting various animals as hazardous, irregardless as to wether they are in order to keep their services in demand. As such a more scientific source should perhaps be used if possible, if indeed there is ANY danger whatsoever which there does not appear to be. [The saddest seal :] ) April,6,2016.The saddest seal. (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to keep your own drain flies, but other readers still want to get rid of them from their residences. There are nontoxic methods of controlling their numbers. Reify-tech (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: IMHO, there should be separate articles about Psychodidae family and Clogmia albipunctata species, not mixed up as it currently is. --Djadjko (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. The article is titled "Drain Fly", and the first section, about the Drain Fly, says that the DF is harmless.  Then you come to the "Sand Fly" part, where it says the fly transmits a serious disease.  It's very confusing.  The "Sand Fly" section should not be in an article titled "Drain Fly". Patrican (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the material on "sand flies" is confusing, and does not belong here. Before deleting it, somebody should check whether it duplicates content in the Sandfly article. If it is not duplicated, it should be copied to Talk:Sandfly so that editors there can salvage any useful content.  Reify-tech (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no objections, I have moved the irrelevant and confusing material on sandflies to Talk:Sandfly for consideration of adding it to the article there. Reify-tech (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article subject
Talk:Leptograpsus

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem