lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Angular gyrus

message: Why site the single study by Ramachandran?  I'm sure the results are interesting, but they do not represent the large literature on this topic.  PubMed lists 622 studies.  Genetral reviews would be more appropriate.  For example, Price (2009,Annuals of the NY Academy of Sciences, 119:62-88) reviewed the results of 100 fMRI studies and concluded that the left angular gyrus is activated during semantic retrieval.  Dronkers et al (2004,Cognition, 92: 145-177) summarize the results of a large series of lesion patients showing that the angular gyrus is one of several areas involved in language comprehension. Zamarian et al. (2009, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 33: 909-925) review evidence that the left angular gyrus is activated with the acquisition of competence in arithmetic and other cognitive domains, Skeptics comments (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Hi, I just wanted to let anyone interested know that I will be editing this page for a course I am taking
APS Wikipedia Initiative. Ifi anyone has thoughts about this page, I'd be happy to discuss them with you. 
Amy Z (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing This Page 

message: Brocas area is in the wrong place (or indicated by the wrong color) in the diagram of the brain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.7.34 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong colors on drawing of brain
Talk:Absolute threshold

message: These concepts appear to be similar enough to justify merging into one single article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Sensory threshold]] to [[Absolute threshold]] 

message: I'm going to delete this material on the grounds that it can't be fixed. It contains a great number of factual errors.
:Threshold cannot be determined on perfect sensation or lack thereof, due to fluctuations in the threshold. Thus, there is no set brightness seen by the viewer, and no intensity just lower than this that no flash is seen. To activate a bipolar, multiple rods must be stimulated, e.g., as 1940’s experiments have determined, that eleven quanta, one for each single rod, is necessary to trigger light perception. Another experiment shows that a 60 percent frequency may represent 2,500 quanta, one per rod, among a patch of 2 million rods. Therefore only one rod out of many is perceived at the threshold, and in a short stimulus, rods cannot absorb more than a single photon of light. (A quantum or photon is stated as Planck's constant and the frequency of light.[7])
:02:43, 29 October 2008‎ Nuvitauy07
:Fluctuations in retinal response are driven by fluctuations of the amount of energy of the stimulus and not the change of retinal sensitivity. For example, if an average number of photons is given, the actual quantum content received and frequency of vision are similar.[7]
:01:17, 19 October 2008‎ 68.37.98.204
Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unsalvageable material 

message: I think the article is now in good enough shape that it doesn't need the expert tag at the top. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Five days have gone by and there have been no replies. I'm going to remove the expert tag. If someone still has issues, feel free to discuss them here. We can always put it back if, or use lower-level tags as needed. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag should come down?
Talk:Lower motor neuron

message: Listing gamma and alpha MNs makes it appear as if it is an exhaustive list of lower motor neurons. It would probably be better if Beta motor neurons were mentioned in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Gabriel II (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta motor neurons 

message: Info better presented on lower motor neuron page (where there is some duplication) in a Clinical significance section Iztwoz (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, agreeing with  who has boldly removed this tag from the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag had been up for three years so yes removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Lower motor neuron lesion]]
Talk:Formatting Output Specification Instance

message: FOSI also can stand for the Family Online Safety Institute (see http://www.fosi.org), incorporators of the Internet Content Rating Association. Maybe someone more experienced than me can make a disambig. page? Gulliveig 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly ; we have a page about them as well: Family Online Safety Institute. Enjoy, --John Vandenberg (chat) 08:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Meanings

message: FOSI was mentioned in MIL-M-28001 (published February 26, 1988; later superseded by MIL-PRF-28001B and MIL-PRF-28001C), but the term may have been in other documents prior to 1988.
;MIL-PRF-28001 - Markup Requirements and Generic Style Specification for Electronic Printed Output and Exchange of Text:... overall requirements for the creation and management of Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) applications.
See also:
;MIL-STD-2361(SC) - Department of Defense Interface Standard:... establishes the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) requirements for use in Army digital publications.
Note: Later versions were to include (some of? / all of?) the ETM/IETM functionality (e.g., display and database requirements) from MIL-M-87268 and MIL-D-87269
;MIL-STD-40051, Technical Manual Preparation: The SGML requirements for technical equipment publications are applicable for the development, acquisition, and delivery of Electronic and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM/IETM).
;MIL-M-87268 - Manuals, Interactive Electronic Technical: General Content, Style, Format, and User-Interaction Requirements
;MIL-D-87269 - Data Base, Revisable: Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals, for the Support of
: Jim Grisham (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and references
Talk:Gyrus

message: Fundus (brain) redirects here, but there is no mention of 'fundus' on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Basically a gyrus is a formation that arises from sulcation of the brain. These should be merged into one article, shouldn't they?  --Gccwang (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it necessary to have both this article and [[Sulcus (neuroanatomy)]]?
Talk:United States men's national rugby league team

message: Most of the players don't seem to have been born in the US. Are they US citizens, or what? --AW (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Parentage, American grandparents, born there, etc. would account for those who are not US citizens.Londo06 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players 

message: What matches were they officiating in? The section just says "Match Officials" section. Is it possible to clarify this? Or could we perhaps remove the section? It seems out of place. Dragonman1986 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah remove, unless they have controlled World Cup, Super League or NRL matches then they are not notable. Mattlore (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match officials section 

message: According to rugbyleagueproject.org a Mike Edwards played for Oldham in 1995-96 and USA in 2006, is this the same Mike Edwards? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Edwards - Oldham and USA? 

message: I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: could be made into a set index unless it's primary topic
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from New Page Review process
Talk:Chorda tympani

message: The first diagram in this article shows the left tympanic membrane (TM) viewed from within the middle ear, not the right TM as stated in caption. Easy to confuse as the view is reversed from how we normally view the TM from the external ear. 1.146.136.113 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram caption correction
Talk:Beta wave

message: When I was reading I found it hard to understand some of the sentences because they had so many big words in a row that it was hard to interpret. The sentences were all really long. Maybe use some shorter sentences so the reader has time to process before they read on. Natashakoenig (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I posted this to the image talk page and am mirroring here: the horizontal axis has numbers but not units, and the vertical axis has no scale at all. This seems to limit its usefulness/appropriateness for use in articles. Any chance of a something better being created? --EEMIV (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axes 

message: Is it possible to change the terminology from that of 'waves' to 'oscillations' in this series of articles? Oscillation it the preferred term used by neurophysiologists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinhern (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. The problem is that the term "waves" is so much more widely used. And if people do a search, they'll likely search for "alpha waves" rather than "alpha oscillations." Because Wikipedia tries to meet the needs of a general audience, changing the terminology may not be optimal. TimidGuy (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Waves vs Oscillations
Talk:Metencephalon

message: There has been some information related to the pons structure added to this page, that can be (and is) housed in the relevant page. This seems to have been copied from the DMV, and doesn't flow well with the article either. I've rolledback with an explanation, and I'll wait a while (I've added a note on the IP's talk page) to see if a discussion is opened on it, otherwise I'm going to revert again. BananaFiend (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, also cerebellum. BananaFiend (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added information
Talk:David Eagleman

message: The entries on Eagleman's written works read more like the blurbs publishers would put on the back of books to promote them than encyclopedia articles. Maybe they should be flagged as violating the criteria that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." (Biography of LIving Persons Guidelines) I think these write-ups would be stronger if they covered more of the content of the books than their critical acclaim. Any thoughts? I would do it myself, but I haven't read any of the books, so even if I pulled facts from reviews, I'm not in a position to decide which ones are the most relevant.
>>> yes, I posted what I introduced as a "balanced and critical review" from the Guardian, and it was subsequently deleted out of the entry - certainly the overall picture of his work is positive, but what is portrayed currently is biased  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squarepeg.roundhole (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone of  "Writing" Section

message: i, too, thought that the writing section is inappropriate.  I agree with the above comment that there should be descriptions of, not praise for, the books.  And I'm a fan!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.12.143 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too promotional 

message: The birth date and birth date were removed from the article without explanation. This is relevant information for this person. I'm going to undo the change. Isaiah (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date and Birth date removed, why ? 

message: The birth name should not be removed for this subject. The person is well known in his field and is a best selling author, so previous names are relevant for a person with this notability.  Isaiah (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Name being removed by anonymous editors 

message: Saw your entry on Rush ROS. Do you know their MAP study? Is it useful? RANDOMTHOUGHTS (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NunStudy 
Talk:Climbing fiber

message: Is aspartate really neurotransmitter of climbing fibers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.40.31 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Apical dendrite

message: Anyone else feel like too much of this content is not specific enough to apical dendrites?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niubrad (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Information Surplus

message: Needs simple cartoon or actual image showing a labelled apical dendrite  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramit57 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs picture
Talk:Basal dendrite

message: I'm going to add a quick sentence and reference about how basal dendrites are temporarily present in granule cells soon.
Mhuda25 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article is written well with a neutral tone and reliable sources. I would recommend adding more information if possible, as well as organizing the article into various sections. The lead can then summarize each of the sections rather than being the majority of the article. [Meghana Tallam]
The sources present are reliable, and this article has a lot of potential to develop into a great article. The foundation for the start of the article is pretty strong. However, I think that adding more recent sources would be beneficial in terms of the accuracy of the information. Breaking the article down into section is a good idea too, to have more organization if that's the plan for editing this article. [Ban Shoukeir]
This page has a lot of potential. The lead is a strong start but should be elaborated on; each sentence of the lead could make for its own section. I'd also suggest expanding on the study about the connection to the TAOK2 gene. Overall the article is neutral and has very reliable sources which are both important. Adding images may also be beneficial. NinaLopergolo (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review
Talk:Dentate nucleus

message: I don't think that we should merge this article into the main cerebellum article.  It is an important enough nucleus that it deserves its own page, and if we included all the deep cerebellar  nuclei in the cerebellum page, it would make the main page much less concise. (D.c.camero (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of all deep cerebellar nuclei into cerebellum
Talk:Extreme capsule

message: The anatomical image does not label the extreme capsule (capsula extrema)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.113.226 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with anatomical image

message: I would be grateful if the authors could spare a few comments, or otherwise point to some references in the HUMAN neuroanatomy literature (imaging and/or histology) on the relationship/confusion between the extreme capsule fiber system and the so-called inferior fronto-occipital fascicle(IFOF). Unlike other cases of confusion in neuroanatomy that can be largely put down to terminological overlap/redundancy (for example with the Arcuate/SLFI-IV/MdLF), I think this matter (i.e. the existence of the IFOF) has important theoretical ramifications for many neuroscientists, particularly those working on the visual system. 
Most appreciated, 
                        J.davidgriffiths (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Have removed the following since the ref used is not referring to the extreme capsule but the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF) and other tracts. Have left it here in case I have misread things:  – "It is also said to make connections with the inferior frontal gyrus,(Broca’s area) and the middle-posterior portion of the superior temporal gyrus (Wernicke's area). Its fibers are near to but can be distinguished by MRI tractography from adjacent fiber bundles such as the uncinate fasciculus, the external capsule, the arcuate fascicle, and the medial, inferior and superior longitudinal fascicles." Given its bidirectional connection between the Broca's and Wernicke's speech areas it could have a role in language."  --Iztwoz (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Content removed
Talk:Subarachnoid cisterns

message: At the last mentioned cistern in this article, a link to the lumbar cistern just redirects right back to this parent article! I guess if there's no actual article about the lumbar cistern, the redirect itself makes sense, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason to have a circular link at its place in this article, since it just returns a reader back to this article.  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello UnderEducatedGeezer, this sort of thing often happens when pages get moved and so on - can you not be bold and repair edits yourself - nobody will shout at you! Best --Iztwoz (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Iztwoz! Thanks, & I was going to take your advice, but I think you beat me to it, I hadn't seen your response until today. Besides being maybe un-bold, I often add links somewhat frequently to articles I happen upon, (because I really like being able to quickly get additional information or clarification within articles), so I am somewhat loath to remove them, even when appropriate. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  lumbar cistern redirect back to this parent article makes no sense!
Talk:List of nerves of the human body

message: It would be just better to classify them by tipe, like motor nerves in 1 section and that. 190.60.93.218 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 
Talk:Acquired brain injury

message: The lead sentence defines ABI as occurring after birth.  Presumably head trauma sustained during birth would count as ABI as well, though, right?  Should the definition be adjusted? delldot talk 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up!  I'm also against the merge with brain damage; one's a cause and the other's a result, there's lots of distinct stuff to say about each. delldot ∇. 08:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: After birth

message: "usually retain their intellectual abilities"
Not even in the handbook for higher education that I used as a reference for some of what I added to this article, not even in that, could I find anything referring to the impairment of intellectual abilities.
From what evidence I can find, there is nothing indicating such an impairment is at all an aspect of ABI, and therfore I am hereby removing the word "usually" from the sentence. --Neptunerover (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: I know people can be born with brain defects and abnormalities, but these are not "injuries" as such, rather malformations. So why is something that occurs later in life to damage what was a perfectly OK brain called an "acquired" brain injury, rather than just a "brain injury"? I mean, an injury to any other part of the body is never called an "acquired" whatever. Kids can also be born with various conditions acquired in utero from the mother, and they're called "congenital (whatever)". Hepatitis acquired later in life is never referred to as "acquired hepatitis" to distinguish it from congenital hepatitis. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Brain injury can also occur in utero (fetal alcohol syndrome), during birth, this concept doesn't include injuries to the brain caused by neurodegenerative disease (Alzheimers, Parkinsons) , hereditary disease (such as huntington's), or congenital abnormalities. All of these are also Brain injuries so it is necessary to distinguish them. This kind of brain injury can also be traumatic (concussion etc) or non-traumatic (stroke etc). Hope that helps. PainProf (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology: "acquired" brain injury

message: There are many causes of Acquired brain injury.  They need to be added & classified.  — Lentower (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes need to added
Talk:Corpora quadrigemina

message: We are supposed to be analytical in the encyclopedia! Thank you! Add more English translations for other Latin terms in other pages please!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C800:A1BE:2A55:7964:33B6 (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks for the translation of the Latin terms 
Talk:Feature Detectors

message: Hmm, this is way more sparse than I would have thought. I currently have exams, but in a week or so I'll expand on this page, specifically by the adding of information about simple cells, complex cells, and end-stopped cells. Some link to maybe the visual cortex or whatever wouldn't hurt (a wiki link I mean). Mainly.generic (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Head direction cell

message: Interesting well written page but I'm still confused about what the direction of the head is relative to. A Google suggests: "in relation to the animal's directional heading with respect to the environment in the horizontal (yaw) plane."
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Head_direction_cells#:~:text=Jeffrey%20Taube%20(2009)%2C%20Scholarpedia,%2C%204(12)%3A1787.&text=Head%20direction%20cells%20(HD%20cells,the%20horizontal%20(yaw)%20plane.
But I guess this might not be true for all species
92.22.49.199 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'direction relative to?'
Talk:Adie syndrome

message: In the discussion of Adies pupil, the article starts out by describing the three classic SYMPTOMS of pupil asymmetry, loss of deep tendon reflexes and diaphoresis. Asymmetry  of the pupils and the loss of deep tendon reflexes are signs (physical findings) and not symptoms  (what the patient feels). Diaphoresis (sweating) is a symptom and can also be a sign.
72.64.74.45 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that describes these three uses symptom, so I think we ought to stick with that. Any of these three can be discovered by the patient (I first noticed that my pupils were dramatically uneven and thought I had a brain tumor or something. :-) ), so I don't think the source is technically incorrect either. --Danger (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Symptom vs sign

message: why have a photo showing two equally dilated pupils when the syndrome is generally one-sided?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.229 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo inappropriate
Talk:Allocortex

message: A not very clear stub which is subtopic of allocortex and inclusion there be more helpful Iztwoz (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Archicortex]] 

message: This is a stub and subtopic of Allocortex which would be better presented there Iztwoz (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Paleocortex]]
Talk:Booty

message: Recursive doesn't mean redundant, but that's not really the point. Reciprocal links are common and often are the best solution. As a few examples, Pepsi has a link to Coca-Cola and vice-versa; Kat (disambiguation) has a link to Cat (disambiguation) and vice-versa. Linking to each other is beneficial when two items are similar but not similar enough to be merged into one page. Vicarious (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Should there not be an entry with a link to prize of war?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:583:8205:9C20:E2F8:47FF:FE1E:23CC (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prize of war
Talk:Conus medullaris

message: This link is misleading. It should be :de:Conus_medullaris. --85.164.139.25 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to german article

message: AhmeD 41.95.108.159 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  UMNL.   LMNL